Sierra Leone

Lord Geddes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the objective of keeping United Kingdom troops in Sierra Leone, and when that objective will be achieved.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, British troops are in Sierra Leone in order to assist the democratically elected Government to establish effective and democratically accountable armed forces capable of defending against brutal rebel attacks.
	Under the current package of short-term military training, we will have trained 8,500 soldiers by the end of September. After that, assuming a stable and permissive environment, we envisage that a UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team will take over responsibility for continuation training.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and warmly endorse the objective that she has reiterated. I also acknowledge the very real skill and professionalism of British forces in Sierra Leone. However, what has been the cost to date to the British taxpayer of the presence of those British forces, and what benefit has the British taxpayer received from such sum?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the total cost of the military training and equipment support to the Government of Sierra Leone is estimated to be some £48 million, split between the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The largest element of that is the cost of the equipment for the SLA at some £24 million.
	The noble Lord asks what is the benefit to the British taxpayer. The British taxpayer has a vested interest in ensuring that we live in a safe and proper world. The British taxpayer also has an expectation that Her Majesty's Government will behave honourably, will support friends in times of need and will not turn their back when those friends are in need of sustenance and help. This Government will not betray them.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may commend the Minister on that stirring and very essential reply. Have the British forces in Sierra Leone been able to do anything to assist the desperate plight of some Sierra Leoneans who have fled across the border into Guinea, and can the Minister tell us what is the current situation of those many tens of thousands of refugees?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer in relation to the assistance given. However, we know that there is movement across the Guinea border, and that is being monitored closely. We know that there have been incursions by the RUF forces and those are also being monitored. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness if I am able to provide her with a more specific response.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what the United Nations operation in Sierra Leone is costing and what contribution it has been able to make, if any, to the restoration of peace throughout the country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, implicit in the last part of the noble Baroness's question is a criticism or a suggestion that UNAMSIL has made no contribution. That is wholly wrong and quite unfair. UNAMSIL has been faced with a most difficult and complex situation. The United Nations as a community has responded robustly. It is correct to say that it has not been as easy as some would have wanted, but it was never going to be easy. We need to give all the support that we can to that initiative.
	I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Baroness in relation to her specific question about cost. However, the money has been well spent if it has stopped the situation degenerating into one from which it would be impossible to return to peace and stability. It has not gone that far yet.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lady Park, does the noble Baroness agree with the views of Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, that the whole UN operation in Sierra Leone is now a bit of a shambles? I believe that those were very nearly her words. Can the noble Baroness tell us something about the future relationship between our own troops and those of the United Nations? Is it intended that they should work together more closely? What prospect is there of tackling the RUF, regaining the diamond fields and bringing peace to Sierra Leone, which was the original objective of sending our troops there in the first place?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord says as a throw-away line that that was the original objective. The noble Lord knows very well that we made clear from the beginning that the objectives were very narrow. They were: to get out the British and other citizens for whom we were responsible; to secure the airfield; and, thereafter, to give proper support to the UN and provide training to the Sierra Leonean army so that the army could become a source of succour to the people of Sierra Leone. I say that as a prerequisite to understanding the situation. The troops are supporting the UN and they are working together very closely. Efforts are being made to regain the areas referred to and those efforts are increasingly successful. We have a realistic expectation that the situation will be resolved in the long term.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say what measures are being taken to prevent the regime in Liberia supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made clear efforts in relation to that issue. Noble Lords will know that Liberia's support in relation to the RUF has been a matter of concern. An independent panel of experts was set up by the United Nations under UN Security Council Resolution 1306 (2000) to investigate the links between the diamonds, the arms and the conflict in Sierra Leone. It produced its report in mid-December 2000. The report presented unequivocal evidence that Charles Taylor and his cronies have been instrumental in the theft of Sierra Leone's rich natural resources, especially diamonds. In return, they have supplied arms and safe havens to the RUF. Charles Taylor's meddling has now extended to Guinea, where the humanitarian situation has deteriorated further. It is clear that Taylor must be stopped. We have responded strongly by co-sponsoring with the United States the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1343 (2001), which imposes sanctions on Liberia and which was passed unanimously by the Security Council on 7th March.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, was the equipment worth £24 million a donation or an ethical sale? Is it our intention to provide more arms to Sierra Leone?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have not got specific figures about the equipment but I shall write to the noble Lord giving him a detailed response to his question. The equipment may be part donation and part sale.

Teacher Training "Salaries": Description

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the distinction between the current training grant paid to Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) students and a training salary.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, training salaries are the bursaries paid to postgraduate trainee teachers attending institutions in England, which my right honourable friend announced on 30th March last year.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not think that it is somewhat misleading to refer to the training grant as a salary when it carries neither national insurance contributions nor any pension element? Is she aware that, on the basis of a 40-hour week, the grant works out to be less than the minimum wage? Does she not therefore feel that it is wrong to refer to the grant as a salary? Doing so gives a very misleading impression.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the term "salary" has been used because the £6,000 is paid in monthly instalments like a salary. It is of course formally a bursary. I do not think that anybody has been misled. Not a single letter making a claim to that effect has been received in my department by my right honourable friends who are responsible for policies on teachers. The £6,000 has been hugely welcomed by the teaching profession--by those who are already teachers, because it will help with the recruitment of more teachers, and by those who are considering becoming teachers. We should view the grant in those terms.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the shortage of teachers, I think it is agreed, has reached crisis proportions, as any perusal of the advertisements in newspapers demonstrates. Have the Government any plans to extend the support they give to PGCE students to include those studying education at university? That would proportionately advantage those who intend to teach in the primary sector where the crisis is as serious.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we need to look at the figures in a calm and rational way. There is always concern when there are vacancies. There has been a net increase of 12,600 teachers in England since January 1998. There are now more teachers in our schools than at any time during the past 16 years. We have just had the biggest single increase in the total number of teachers for a quarter of a century. Those figures should be welcomed. Only last week in this House I said that there had been a 24 per cent increase in the number of applications for students wishing to do PGCEs. The latest figure shows a 26 per cent increase. The increase for secondary schools, which is where the most serious shortages are--I stress that to the right reverend Prelate--is 30 per cent. We are en route to seeing an improvement in the general position concerning teacher recruitment and teacher supply.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister's response does not answer the particular question that the right reverend Prelate asked. I shall press it in a different way. Why do the Government help PGCE candidates but not bachelor of education candidates, who make an important contribution to teaching in our schools?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the focus up to now has been on PGCE students, partly because that route is becoming more popular with increasing numbers of students who come into our universities and enter the teaching profession as graduates. That has been our focus also because, as I just said, the most significant shortages occur in certain subjects in secondary schools. The normal route for the vast majority of secondary school teachers is to complete a degree and a one-year PGCE course. The Government are looking at ways in which we can provide further support for those who take the route of undergraduate education.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, despite the increase in the number of applications, it is a fact that the number of vacancies in secondary schools has doubled over the past year and trebled since 1997? Although the number of applications has increased, the number of acceptances of potential maths teachers on to PGCE courses has fallen in the past year. Maths is a shortage subject.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the latest figures show that there has been an increase in the vacancy rate. The Government are concerned to do as much as we possibly can to reduce that rate. However, I stress that larger numbers of teachers are now coming into the system. There are now more vacancies, partly because there are far more posts. There are more posts in the system because the Government have been able to provide schools with an average increase of £540 per pupil per year, which is a substantial increase. That is allowing head teachers to create more posts in our schools.

Fluoridation of Water

The Lord Bishop of Durham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to amend the law so that decisions about fluoridation of water rest with them rather than local authorities or the water industry.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a review of the research evidence on fluoride and health undertaken by the University of York reported last September. The report confirmed that the fluoridation of water reduces tooth decay and found no evidence of serious risk to overall health, but was critical of the quality of the evidence available. We asked the Medical Research Council for advice on how the research base might be strengthened and we are consulting the water industry about the report. Once we have its responses, we will decide if changes should be made to the current legislation.

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I should like to press him a little more in view of the fact that, as long ago as 1998, the Minister for public health said that the legislation was a mess and the White Paper published in 1999 said that the legislation needed revising. How much longer are we to wait while the responsibility lies with those bodies which are accountable to their shareholders rather than to the public?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to point out that health authorities have found it a major problem in that they went through a proper consultation process and requested water companies to add fluoride to the water but found themselves frustrated. However, we committed ourselves to a course of action which included asking the University of York to undertake this review. As I said, while overall the conclusions were satisfactory, York did identify weaknesses in the whole fluoride research base. It is appropriate therefore to ask the Medical Research Council to review what further research might be undertaken. On the basis of those findings and discussions with the water companies we shall consider whether or not legislation needs to be brought forward.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, how many current local authorities or water authorities who are responsible for these matters either do or do not undertake fluoridation of water? Can the Minister say a little more about whether or not there are adverse effects from fluoridation in view of the fact that it was promulgated strongly in the 1980s that it was a major benefit and appears largely to have been just that?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to give the detailed information to the noble Lord in writing. Essentially, around 5.5 million people in this country are covered by fluoridation schemes and another 500,000 receive fluoride because it is naturally present in the water. A number of health authorities would like to add fluoride to the water but have been frustrated because of the policies of water companies.
	The York review looked at a number of studies and found that, in essence, there was no evidence of adverse effects other than dental fluorosis. I say again that, because there was concern about the quality of the evidence reviewed, we felt it right to ask the Medical Research Council to give us further advice.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I can declare a non-financial interest as president of the British Fluoridation Society. Is my noble friend aware that the parts of the West Midlands that I represented formally, both in another place and in the European Parliament, benefited substantially from the fluoridation of water supplies by Severn Trent Water? Is he aware also that the benefits of that fluoridation are well reflected in dental health statistics for individual health authorities in the West Midlands? Should not those benefits be more widely available and soon?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that a number of districts in the West Midlands which have fluoridation schemes have a low incidence of dental disease, particularly among young people. That is why the Government still recommend to health authorities that in those areas where dental disease is high, fluoridating the water remains the most effective way of improving oral health. However, it is right in an evidence-based approach to ask the Medical Research Council for further advice on potential further research evidence.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, while broadly supporting the Minister in his referral of the matter to the Medical Research Council, does he agree that the key issue is that these decisions should be taken locally? Will he undertake, before the MRC comes up with its conclusions, to investigate whether or not these matters can be determined by local referendum, which in many ways would be the most satisfactory way of determining the matter?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments will always be given the utmost consideration. The current position is that health authorities are responsible for consulting with the local community before making a formal decision on whether or not to apply to a water company for fluoridation. When my right honourable friend Mrs Tessa Jowell developed the policy of the current Government, she said that one part of a review of legislation would be to see whether or not we should transfer the responsibility for fluoridation to local government. We will of course consider that matter. It is also worth making the point that in the current Health and Social Care Bill we envisage local authority overview and scrutiny committees taking on a scrutiny role in relation to health service matters and that may be an issue we need to look at in relation to fluoridation.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have always understood that a high level of fluoride in the water supply may have an adverse effect on the kidneys. Has that issue been properly investigated?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the work undertaken by the University of York looked at a total of 31 studies which considered the possible negative effects of fluoride in relation to various potential diseases. Overall the studies examining those negative effects indicated that they provided insufficient evidence on any specific outcome to permit confident conclusions and that further research needed to be undertaken in those areas. That reinforces our decision to seek further advice from the Medical Research Council. Overall the York review concluded that, apart from fluorosis, there was no evidence of serious diseases being caused by fluoridating the water supply.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I took the fluoridation Bill through this House in order to clarify the legal position for new areas to become eligible to introduce fluoridation? Is he further aware that, as a result of fluoridation, which Birmingham started in the 1960s, Birmingham now has the best teeth in England? I wish that I had lived in Birmingham in those days so that I did not have to smile at myself at night!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not too late for the noble Baroness to join us in Birmingham. I pay tribute to her work in taking that Bill through the House of Lords. If only the word "shall" had been in that Bill instead of "may"!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the University of York study showed that only a moderate 15 per cent of the children's group benefited from fluoridation? Is not that scant reward for compulsory mass medication, which I believe to be against the interests of the whole of the population of this country?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a 15.5 per cent reduction in the prevalence of dental disease is a worthwhile result from the fluoridation of water. The debate on mass medication has been well and truly aired in this House. The fact is that almost all water contains some naturally-occurring levels of detectable fluoride. That is not mass medication.

Government Advertising

The Earl of Courtown: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the current levels of expenditure on government advertising represent value for money for the taxpayer.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, government advertising is the responsibility of individual departments. It is subject to strict guidelines published by the Cabinet Office. Those state that it is essential to conduct a rigorous value-for-money examination for all publicity proposals, including advertising.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he tell me where Her Majesty's Government draw the line between advertising a government initiative and the promotion of new Labour?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have indicated that a rigorous approach to value for money is taken. The reference to advertising expenditure in the past three months includes such matters as £2.1 million for police recruitment; £2.1 million for blood donation; £3.2 million for nursing recruitment; and £1.9 million for Royal Navy recruitment. Those seem to us to be appropriate matters on which to spend such sums.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we would be helped by guidance from those who are questioning that expenditure on where they would like the cuts to fall? Are they just against money being spent on informing people of the areas to which they should not go in order to avoid spreading foot and mouth across their land, or do they also want the Government to stop telling people who are poor where they may get the benefits to which they are entitled?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that it would be helpful to know where those raising this question suggest that the line should be cut. I cannot help but refer to an article in a publication called Campaign, written by Mr Michael Ancram, chairman of the Conservative Party, which begins by stating:
	"The Conservative Party is to block the Government's recruitment campaigns for police and nurses",
	when Tony Blair announces that a general election is expected in June.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I rise in an effort to be helpful on behalf of the Cross Benches. Does the Minister not agree that in the Printed Paper Office is a large glossy document headed with words to the effect, "The Government's Achievements". Subsequent paragraphs then discuss future government achievements. Will the Minister take on board the fact that there may not be total unanimity on the degree to which the items listed are achievements?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have no idea what document the noble Lord is referring to. The question raised by the noble Earl concerns government advertising. I am trying to stress that the advertising referred to is for the recruitment of nurses, police officers and so forth, which I regard as a good thing.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps the question can be put another way. Can the Minister tell us what testing of the concept of any campaign was carried out before its release to ensure that the advertisements did not convey a party political point? If the Government budgeted for such campaigns to run for six months, one year or two years, as is normal, why has expenditure shot up in the past four months?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the campaigns have nothing to do with politics. The recruitment of police officers and nurses is something which all parties across any political divide would wish to encourage. I am amazed that the Conservative Party is to stop the recruitment of police officers and nurses. The expenditure for advertising this year has risen to levels comparable to those in 1986 and 1987. Between 1992 and 1997 there was a substantial drop in advertising. Was that because the Government were doing nothing during that period?

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that at a time of massively increased job availability, it has been vital to advertise to promote applications for jobs in essential public services? Further, given the improvements in the wide range of welfare benefits, does he agree that it is perfectly reasonable to advertise to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements and rights?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely with both premises. I particularly emphasise the fact that the Armed Forces have made clear that campaigning should be consistent throughout the year. That is what we have done. There is not much point in having a working families' tax credit unless people know about it. It is appropriate for a Government to take steps to that effect.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords--

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Would the Minister explore the precincts to see whether he can find the document to which the noble Lord referred? It is at least possible that the Minister might then conclude that it is a rather sombre example of the incredible being offered to the incredulous.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Earl concerns government advertising. I do not know what the document is but it does not seem to fall within that rubric.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords,--

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I shall be brief in the hope that the noble Lord is able to intervene subsequently. The noble Baroness has had a distinguished career in the advertising industry. She will know that the industry has moved on a long way since the days of Lord Leverhulme, who said that he knew that half his advertising worked but he did not know which half. Does the Minister agree that officials at the COI and the CIGS are rigorous in ensuring a distinction between party politics and government information? Further, they have been in the vanguard of pressing for what is known in the industry as "media auditing"; that is, ensuring that the client receives value for his advertising pound.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that government officials involved in such matters as advertising, recruitment drives and the promotion of benefits available to people as a result of government initiatives are utterly rigorous in ensuring that they are effective. They have also been in the lead in ensuring that there is an appropriate media audit.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, between the two short debates this afternoon my noble friend Lord McIntosh will repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Wembley National Stadium project.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Noakes and the Lord Howell of Guildford set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The National Health Service

Baroness Noakes: rose to call attention to the state of morale in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the state of morale in the NHS is of great concern. The NHS is a great institution in which I had the honour to serve for three years as Director of Finance and later as a member of its policy board. It is an essential part of the social and economic fabric of our land, but it is in crisis.
	That crisis has no easy measurement. Most of the data that we have about the NHS are hard data. They tell us how many people have been treated; how many are waiting for treatment; how much money has been spent; how many new hospital schemes are under way; and how many staff are employed in the NHS. But crucially, those data do not tell us how the 1 million or so NHS staff feel. That feeling is critical to how well the NHS can deliver.
	Anyone who has been involved in running any kind of organisation--I imagine that will cover most, if not all, noble Lords here today--will know that people are the most important element. As the late Lord Sieff said:
	"Ultimately, whatever the form of economic activity, it is people who count".
	It is fair to say, although I derive no personal comfort from saying it, that four years ago many in the NHS welcomed the arrival of the Labour Government. They felt that the NHS would improve and that life for NHS staff would improve. They were wrong, and now more and more are saying so, although some are still too afraid to say so openly. The cumulative effect is of plummeting morale and dissatisfaction with the way that the NHS is being run.
	A recent survey found that 84 per cent of nurses and doctors felt that stress levels were increasing in their jobs and that 10 per cent thought that stress might have resulted in clinical error. An increasing clinical error rate is truly frightening.
	When we talk of morale we are not simply talking of the personal happiness of NHS staff or the latest fashion in HR initiatives. We are talking about a very real impact on patient care and that is why the current crisis in morale is so worrying.
	I want to spend most of my time today talking about morale in various staff groups within the NHS. However, before I do that, I shall refer to one small group within it: community health councils. CHCs have done much valuable work for patients and carers over the past 30 years, particularly when the NHS made errors. But they were not perfect. The Government decided, without any consultation, to abolish them.
	That decision caused much heartache and concern to the committed staff and volunteers in CHCs. For the past nine months, they have had to fight for their own survival while at the same time continuing their good work for patients. I know that morale in CHCs will have been lifted last week by your Lordships' wise decision to reject abolition in the Health and Social Care Bill--and we can only hope and pray that the Government will not inflict yet more pain on this group by seeking to reverse your Lordships' decision in another place.
	The main experience of the NHS for most people is their general practitioner. Around 78 per cent of us saw a GP last year. If morale is poor among GPs, it can have devastating consequences for patient care. And morale certainly is poor. A recent survey for Doctor magazine showed that four out of five GPs would quit the NHS if they could, which is much higher than in any previous survey. Nine out of 10 thought that NHS reforms were lowering morale. More than two-thirds of GPs are now less likely to recommend a career as a GP than five years ago.
	That seems extraordinary. Have we not frequently heard from the Government about their plans for general practice with the aim of improving everything from premises to the access times for patients? The NHS Plan proudly proclaimed a commitment for a further 2,000 GPs on top of the existing 36,000. But the GPs pointed out that the existing plans for new GPs already had 1,100 pencilled in; and the profession's own calculations showed that more than 10,000 new GPs were needed if the Government's various initiatives were to be delivered.
	General practitioners believe that the Government are dragging their heels over the promised new contract. They are getting increasingly angry about this lack of progress. We saw that anger yesterday as some GPs even closed their doors to non-urgent cases. The BMA is balloting GPs. To date, all that GPs have had from the Government are some promises about freeing them from paperwork and various financial inducements, which were described by one despairing GP as "pathetic and insulting".
	General practitioners genuinely want to deliver improved care to their patients. They want to increase the average time spent with each patient from the current level of eight minutes. But they can see only that clinical time will be squeezed further by central requirements. They worry that that will lead to dangerous medicine. That is why they would opt out if they could.
	The picture is no happier when we look at consultants. They were pretty satisfied with the Government's commitment in the NHS Plan to an extra 7,500 consultants by 2004, a rise of 30 per cent. Consultants think that that would be a good start to closing the gap with the rest of the EU, which has roughly double our rate of consultants. Consultants believe that our low consultant numbers are a major cause of our long waiting lists and stress within the consultant community.
	However, the consultants were definitely not happy with the NHS Plan's proposal that new consultants should work for up to seven years exclusively in the NHS. Doctors do 12 or more years of hard work for low pay before they earn consultant status and the Government are now telling them that their ability to work privately will be severely constrained for a further seven years.
	Even with the promised extra pay, consultants will not be paid well compared with their peers. Young doctors look at their university colleagues, now working in the City or in the professions, generally with less stress and earning far more money. Small wonder that many are considering whether it is worth it. If more quit, unfilled vacancies will continue to rise and the planned growth in the consultant population could very easily go negative.
	The Government have belatedly started negotiations on the new contract. Just before that, consultants were,
	"deeply frustrated and annoyed by the failure to make progress on negotiations".
	If these negotiations do not bear fruit to the taste of consultants, they will be very dissatisfied. Behind them, the junior doctors, who work so hard with the aim of becoming consultants one day, will also lose heart. The NHS cannot afford this level of dissatisfaction.
	No story of NHS morale would be complete without reference to the largest professional group--nurses. The NHS Plan set out a fairly modest increase of 20,000 nurses, on top of the existing 390,000. But there are 22,000 vacancies at present and an increasing number of our nurses are leaving to go abroad; there were more than 5,000 last year.
	At the same time, we are becoming increasingly dependent on nurses from overseas. Twenty-five per cent of London's nurses are foreign. The Department of Health has even created a director with specific responsibility for recruiting nurses from abroad. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege put the spotlight on this last week during the Report stage of the Health and Social Care Bill. She described how we are simultaneously depleting the scarce skills base of countries with desperate healthcare needs, such as South Africa, while not even solving the problems of work pressures on our own hard-pressed nurses.
	A recent survey of nurses in London, where vacancies are particularly acute, had eight out of 10 saying that the NHS was not a better place to work than two years ago. Most nurses do not feel that they are adequately paid. Many do part-time agency work, which is itself costly for the NHS, merely to survive. More than two-thirds of nurses received only an inflationary increase last year. The new cost-of-living supplement is not being paid to all nurses with high housing costs. This has done little for morale or recruitment.
	At the same time, the Government are introducing modern matrons. This is yet another call on our over-stretched front-line nursing workforce without any additional resources being provided for implementation. Described by one commentator as "an evidence-free political wheeze", this is no substitute for policies which will make the NHS a better place for nurses.
	Let me now turn to managers in the NHS. Over the past year or so we have seen a steady trickle of the most senior managers leaving the NHS. We have seen scapegoating on an unprecedented scale, with chief executives and even chairmen being forced to resign for little or no good reason. The newly appointed NHS HR director said, before his appointment, that the "heads must roll" approach is,
	"seriously eroding the confidence of senior managers".
	Targets and priorities rain down from on high and new initiatives arrive daily. The Government are introducing traffic lights which would see 25 per cent of all health bodies graded red, the bottom of the pile, set to be interfered with to an even greater degree. The books still do not balance without massive intervention, a process described by the NHS Confederation as "bruising".
	Let me quote the words of one long-standing NHS manager:
	"You are always being watched. But it is not just that. It's the number of people watching you--the regional office, the health authority, the primary care group not to mention the media and all the formal inspection bodies".
	The Minister may well say that all that will change following the Damascene conversion we apparently witnessed last week when the Secretary of State for Health announced a new-found love of decentralisation. But this promises yet more reorganisation. My instinct is that the burdens on managers will be increased in the short term for little or no long-term gain. It is not surprising that managers are worried; the last thing they want is another reorganisation. Many managers already complain that they work a 10 to 12-hour day, sometimes six days a week, which is way beyond European Working Time Directive rules.
	I could go on. There are some groups of NHS staff that I have been unable to cover this afternoon, but I am keen to hear the views of other noble Lords. Before I sit down, I remind your Lordships that a poor state of morale exists in the NHS despite the fact that winter pressures have been almost non-existent. We had no flu or similar epidemic, and almost all the statistics were benign. The workforce is not exhausted by a hard winter but by initiative overload, a failure to address recruitment and pay and, above all, a failure to listen to the concerns of people in the NHS. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I welcome this debate on a very timely and topical subject and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing it. I declare a kind of interest. On a daily basis I see evidence of the stress of working in the NHS. My husband is a surgeon at one of the London hospitals. I can assure noble Lords that his 80-hour week hardly makes for an easy life. Some flourish under such pressure, but for many the workload, stress and feeling that constraints simply prevent best practice destroy morale.
	There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about morale in the NHS, but we now have the most systematic survey ever conducted of NHS staff at all levels. In 1999 the NHS Executive developed a human resources framework called Working Together as part of the Government's NHS national plan. Central to the plan were the objectives of increasing staff numbers and improving their working lives. All trusts were asked to conduct surveys of their staff. No doubt trusts groaned as they undertook yet another instruction from the centre, but, one hopes, with an understanding of its purpose. After all, the NHS is its staff, and it would be a negligent employer within any organisation, whether a huge public service or a business, who did not look to see whether his or her employees were happy, focused on their work and not about to leave.
	The results of the surveys were reported to trust boards in the autumn of 2000. The views of almost 80,000 NHS personnel are recorded, which makes this the most comprehensive picture of NHS staff attitudes ever compiled. But no doubt noble Lords will be surprised and alarmed to hear that no analysis has been made of the material. No lessons could, therefore, be drawn from it had not my colleague in another place, Paul Burstow, taken it upon himself to carry out that analysis himself. Surely the Government could not have feared the results of the survey, could they? But the results are dynamite. "Stressed out and overworked" sums up the views of the 80,000 NHS staff. Fifty-two per cent of staff in the eastern region said that there were insufficient resources to do the job properly; 60 per cent of staff in the northern and Yorkshire region said that morale was not good in their trust; 71 per cent of staff in the West Midlands said they were not coping with work-related stress; 77 per cent of staff in the north west region said that they were not coping with their workload, and so on. These surveys are a snapshot of the views of NHS staff and will not make pleasant reading--should he get round to it--for the Minister.
	Another appalling indicator of low morale and stress is the suicide rate. I was horrified to discover that the suicide rates among doctors is twice the national average, and among nurses it is almost four times that. There are many within the health service who find their work very rewarding, but it is clear that for more and more staff the mounting pressures increase stress, diminish the sense of satisfaction and undermine morale, and we ignore that at our peril.
	Why is the position as it is? Endless bureaucratic changes, a feeling that staff are not in control and that the wrong decisions are being made, long hours, low pay, long waiting lists and dissatisfied patients have all contributed to this sense. But the key factor time and again is simply lack of staff. Take an operating theatre not too far from here last Thursday. It could have been any Thursday, or any weekday. The list had been set up: two major cases were to be followed by a few minor ones. The first case took longer than expected because complications arose, which is common enough. Therefore, the list could not be completed on time. The nurses pointed out that there would be no one to replace them when they finished their shift and the list must be curtailed. The surgeon and his team would have liked to continue to operate on the cancer patient, who was ready and waiting, but there were not enough nurses to do that. Therefore, it was the surgeon who had to explain the position to the anxious patient and her relatives. Thus, the doctor is pitted against the nurse and the patient against both, and all go home angry and upset.
	Why has this happened? It is a supreme irony--or maybe evidence of a change of heart--that this debate is today led by the Conservatives. The Tories cut the number of nurse training places in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The number of nurses recruited fell from 37,000 in 1983 to only 6,000 in 1995, and the number of doctors in training also declined. We are now paying the price for that. Low pay and high stress levels mean that many nurses leave the service, and 62 per cent spend hours in excess of those for which they are contracted. Forty-two per cent of nurses have caring responsibilities, which is not a matter that is being satisfactorily addressed.
	We shall not keep these nurses unless we address their needs, and we shall not replace them if we do not train them. We believe that we need 27,500 more nurses, 4,500 more doctors and 10,500 more professionals allied to medicine, and we have that costed. The real answer to the problem of morale is to have a proper commitment to the NHS. Only by doing that will the investment in the staff take place which is so essential. Let us call for papers but, more than that, let us call for action.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have no connection with the NHS apart from being a patient from time to time. The noble Baroness asks about the state of morale. I believe that in such a vast organisation which employs over 1 million people a generalisation about the state of morale is quite meaningless. A generalisation may be unfair to the thousands of skilled and hard-working people who are dedicated and committed to the NHS. When the noble Baroness spoke about different groups--GPs, consultants, nurses and managers--she was perhaps getting to the core of the problem. However, morale is a matter for even smaller units than that. Within an organisation morale varies from part to part and goes up and down.
	For example, morale must be high in a hospital where a new treatment that has been tried results in unexpected improvements in patients' health. Equally, morale will be low in the hospital where an injection was administered incorrectly into the spinal cord of a patient resulting in death. Therefore, a vast generalisation about morale is quite meaningless. Morale concerns the smaller parts of an organisation. But that is not to say that there is no value in high morale; there certainly is.
	Of course people matter. High morale produces better performance; people work more cheerfully and are more helpful. The hope is that that is transmitted to patients who will get better. So I agree that it is important to create circumstances where morale flourishes. But that is not solely in the hands of the Government; it is also in the hands of health managers, health professionals, doctors, and, indeed, the patients. I am sure that when Lord Morris of Castle Morris came to your Lordships' House from his hospital bed especially to thank and compliment the nurses at the Midlands Cancer Unit who treated him, morale there went up. To make sure that there was no mistake, noble Lords may remember that he read his hospital details off his wrist band. Sadly I learnt that he died yesterday.
	Morale is under pressure in the NHS because the organisation is under pressure of change; change for the better. So it is a pity that the noble Baroness is challenging and putting on the defensive those who want to make the change rather than those who want to preserve the status quo. There are three changes taking place; one by the Government, one by patients and one by science. All are taking place simultaneously.
	First, the change from the internal market. The Government are right to move from a service where doctors and hospitals were in competition with each other to a service encouraging collaboration and the setting of high standards. The noble Baroness has plenty of experience in business. She knows how difficult and hard it is to introduce customer care. There is a world of difference between providing what management thinks the customer wants and providing what the customer actually wants. One has to listen to one's customers to find out what they want and not just talk to them. Then one has to find the money, the staff and the facilities to provide it while sacrificing one's own sectional interests. The NHS and the Government are getting on with the matter. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give us the details.
	Secondly, there is the change in the public's attitude towards the medical profession. Today patients are better informed about medicine; indeed, they can challenge doctors, not only by finding out about illness from the Internet, but also because of the emerging relationship between illness and lifestyle. A cardiologist, as well as being skilled at heart transplantation, must also know about exercise and good diet and discuss it with someone who perhaps knows just as much. Patients with such diseases as rheumatoid arthritis now want to know whether the reason for their suffering is genetic or environmental.
	Nowadays all professions are more stressed, not only doctors. Since the public stopped being deferential towards professions, ever-increasing demands are being made on them. That means that their effectiveness and efficiency have to be open to public scrutiny and measurement. That is always a stressful experience which can raise or lower morale.
	That leads me to the third change. With new science, expectations are increasing; 100 per cent success is expected. Of course that is impossible. There are always risks. Doctors are struggling to find better and more open ways of communicating risks and the limitations of knowledge. But the naming, shaming and blaming culture that we have today only adds to the stress on doctors. It also affects morale.
	All these are very complicated changes which are happening simultaneously. They have to be managed. Inevitably, managing changes of this kind means that there is more centralisation, bottom-up reporting, top-down guidelines, budgeting, bureaucracy and paperwork.
	I believe that the initial stage has been passed. The grip is being loosened. Step by step, difficulties and problems are being attacked. Two Budgets have promised more money for staff and better facilities. More doctors and technicians are being trained and more nurses recruited. Today there was a scheme announced to recruit more midwives. As these initiatives begin to take effect and as the grip loosens, morale will improve in every surgery, hospital and laboratory. As patients, we, too, can help morale by being better informed and more discriminating and understanding users of the health service; making a fuss when we experience negligence and errors but also acknowledging good work and high standards; and being realistic about our demands of what a public health service can deliver.

Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing the debate. I have contracted a common cold. I have no need to go to the doctor, but I hope that my voice will hold out.
	I had connections with the health service in west London for many years, but I no longer have to declare a direct interest. I too should like to use change as my theme, not in order to defend the status quo, but more to explain the impact that change has on the health service and some of the ways that it affects doctors and managers. I do not mention nurses and other related professions specifically, but many of my comments apply equally to them.
	I start with organisational change. Each time the management of the health service is reorganised, there is a loss in human terms. That is not compensated for by projected cash savings, which are seldom realised anyway. Changes to the structure make managers worry about their future job prospects. That makes it difficult for them to give their full attention to the job in hand. A degree of stability and continuity is essential if people are to feel secure enough to give their best.
	Organisational change can be justified only if in the medium to long term it provides an improved framework to support and enable the front line. Reshaping management for the sake of it can exacerbate rather than address deep-seated problems. The unease is increased by the assertion that there are too many managers. How many times have we heard that said? How does that equate with the plea from doctors to be relieved of the increasing load of form filling and red tape? To believe that the health service can be run efficiently without adequate, competent and valued management is fantasy.
	Another aspect of change that is worth mentioning is the speed of technological advance. As we know, that makes possible more sophisticated diagnosis and treatment, but it tends to move ahead of an adequate supply of staff trained and experienced in the use of new techniques. Also investment in sufficient modern equipment will inevitably lag behind. The increasing number of new drugs and the complexities surrounding their introduction and use place yet another burden on the profession. Working out which patients' needs are greatest, and trying to assess outcomes, gives rise to dilemmas that are both practical and ethical. Distorting comment in the media, not always refuted by government, does not help.
	Another aspect of change is behavioural change. That is perhaps the hardest to define, but it is relevant in this context. In general, society's respect for people in the professions has declined in recent years and health professionals are no exception. To attempt to analyse the causes of this decline would be a subject in itself, but I shall spend a moment looking at the effects that it has on consultants and GPs.
	Because ill-health can cause pain and disability and because we all die in the end, we would like to place doctors on a pedestal of infallibility. That puts them in a unique and impossible position. Realistically we know this. But each patient wants to believe that the doctor in charge of their case has sufficient knowledge and skill to provide the best care available. Nowadays, with patients having access to far more information than ever before--both individual and general through the Internet and other sources--the relationship is changing and doctors have to be prepared to be more closely questioned or even challenged during a consultation, and to discuss the case with the patient in more detail than ever before. Those who previously thought explanation unnecessary can no longer remain aloof. These new relationships will be difficult and painful for those doctors who are not skilled in talking to their patients, but the old ways are becoming unacceptable.
	When a service is having to contend with rapid and sometimes confusing change, strong and supportive leadership is essential. Sadly, there are times when the Government have failed in that respect. They have been known to seize the opportunity provided by damaging media stories to castigate the profession, and doctors are held up as examples of the forces of conservatism which have no place in our "modernised Britain". When the Government realise that they have gone too far, that the sense of being undermined and of being held in low esteem felt by doctors will rebound on them, and that public opinion is shifting in support of doctors, they change their tune and praise the profession for the valuable contribution that it makes to society.
	The Government have also allowed public expectations to be raised far above achievable levels. We are told of the extra billions going into the health service, which themselves can be misleading owing to a tendency by the Government to double count. They also announce additional funds as if they will be spent today and with instant effect, whereas in fact there is always a time-lag. Furthermore, funds alone cannot achieve stated objectives. In primary care, for instance, skilled staff and accessible high quality premises cannot be produced out of a hat. As a result, disgruntled patients hold doctors to account for failing to deliver what they have been led to expect.
	To end on a brighter note, some good things have happened without which the pressure on competent GPs would have been even greater. Primary care groups have benefited practices that are single handed or very small. They have reduced isolation and provided mutual support and performance scrutiny. GPs themselves are now more critical of their weaker members and cases being reported to the GMC have increased in number and are being acted on more speedily. Out-of-hours co-operatives have helped a great deal and, looking back, many GPs in demanding urban areas wonder how they survived being on call round the clock. Now they can plan their time between work and home in a more reasonable way.
	The vast majority of people working in the health service are loyal and committed. They need to be working in an organisation which will support and encourage them and give them enough space to get on with the job.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing this debate. I agree with her that what is important about the poor morale in the NHS is its devastating effect on patient care.
	We have heard from my noble friend Lady Northover the hard evidence of the chronic state of morale. However, I have gathered some anecdotal evidence by talking to health professionals working at the cutting edge--not all of them surgeons! They were unanimous in their claim that morale in the health service is at an all-time low. That is not just because they are overworked and underpaid but because they believe that the shortage of staff and resources limits their ability to care for patients. Health service workers are some of the most conscientious in the workforce. It matters to them that they are unable to do the job as well as they know they could. For Britain to have reached a position where large numbers of GPs are threatening to resign in 12 months is a clear indicator that something is very wrong.
	That is not the only indicator. Look at the outcomes--for example, the cancer survival rates for the UK compared with other European countries and the US. We have the worst survival rates for every single common cancer of every single major organ. I know that it is not just a matter of money, but is it a coincidence that these outcomes correlate with spending? The UK spends less and more people die prematurely. That is a terrifying fact.
	The first port of call for most people is their GP, who, according to the BMA, is facing a crisis of morale. A recent survey conducted across the country by the Liberal Democrats has shown a worrying level of dissatisfaction with the length of time patients have to wait to see their doctor. Half of those surveyed said they had to wait between two and five days for an appointment and 19 per cent had to wait longer than that. I recently had to wait nearly two weeks myself. No wonder people are dissatisfied and doctors are worried.
	Delegation is not the answer because there are not enough practice nurses and district nurses either. They too are demoralised. One district nurse I spoke to told me that morale is at an all-time low because Department of Health officials do not listen to the people on the ground. She and her colleagues believe that money is not being spent in the right way--on patient care. People do not think problems through properly and nurses have to waste time as a consequence. For example, computers are provided, but not in the right place, at the district nurse's base. She then has to go somewhere else to input her data, wasting time that could have been spent visiting patients. Hard-pressed district nurses cannot spend time during visits doing that vital bit of health education that can avoid problems in the future. This is short-sighted and not really cost-effective in the long term.
	No wonder the suicide rates for doctors and nurses have been so high for the past 10 years. Lurking beneath these figures is a level of stress which, even where it does not lead to suicide, compromises the health of the staff involved and their efficiency in dealing with patients. We need more doctors and more nurses and certainly not privatisation of the health service.
	Another area where anecdotes abound is dental services. Everybody knows how difficult it is to find an NHS dentist and as a consequence many people go without dental treatment. The previous administration gave grants to dentists to improve their surgeries as long as they agreed to take NHS patients for five years. Just as this scheme was beginning to work, along came the Labour Government and changed it. Now we have NHS dental access centres, which are a sort of A&E for teeth. They may work, but there is a danger of their perpetuating the two-tier dental service that we now have.
	Part of the demoralisation is caused by foot dragging and poor decision-making. One example of that is cervical cancer screening. Despite having one of the most comprehensive screening programmes in the world, with 85 per cent coverage, the UK has among the worst death rates from cervical cancer in western Europe, with over 1,300 women dying every year. Yet the condition is 100 per cent treatable if detected early.
	The Pap smear is the current test used for screening. Introduced in the 1940s, it has been very successful in reducing deaths from cervical cancer. However, the Pap smear does not test for the cause of the disease. It tests for the symptoms by examining a sample of cells taken from the surface of the cervix. Screeners review several hundred samples a day and spend only a few minutes examining each slide. Many abnormal cells can go undetected. I know this very well because when I left university, my first job was at the Christie Hospital, Manchester, a centre of excellence for cancer treatment and research. I was a cytologist screening cervical swears, looking down a microscope all day. It was a very difficult job that required immense concentration for long periods. No wonder this kind of screening has only around 70 per cent accuracy. Having done the job, it is very obvious to me why that is. Human beings simply cannot be 100 per cent sure that every cell on a slide is healthy. Besides, a smear could have been taken from an area away from the lesion.
	However, there are three other tests, all of which have potential to be a great deal more accurate and save money as well as lives. High-risk types of a virus known as the human papilloma virus or HPV have been shown to be present in 99.7 per cent of cervical cancers. There is a DNA test that can detect high-risk, cancer-causing types of HPV with 95 per cent accuracy. Unlike the Pap test, HPV testing is predictive and thus can detect and track the cause of the disease. Many people, including the readers of Cosmopolitan magazine, would like to see the HPV test introduced as part of the national screening programme. A petition carried out by Councillor Patsy Calton, in Cheadle, Cheshire, near where I live, brought an unprecedented level of support for adding this test to the screening programme.
	The National Screening Advisory Committee recommended in September 1999 that a pilot be carried out, but it was not until February last year that a decision was made to carry out a year's pilot. That did not start until last summer. In the meantime, although the screening programme saves thousands of lives, 1,300 women could die. In 1996-97, 200,000 women in the UK had a borderline smear result and 100,000 were referred for examination, at a cost to the NHS of £26 million--money that could have been spent on more doctors and more nurses. In the end, only 4,000 women were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer that year. Those figures reveal the inefficiencies in the current system and yet the Government have dragged their feet over introducing a more efficient, well researched and cost-effective scheme which would also avoid the terrible anxiety undergone by patients who are called back for further tests.
	It is that kind of situation that really gets to NHS staff and adversely affects recruitment and retention. Can the Minister say when the results of the HPV pilot scheme will be known and how soon action could be taken? Casting wider than that, I should like to know what the Government are doing to ensure that other demoralising inefficiencies of this kind do not persist in the NHS.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her timely debate. As the Minister knows, in November I had a most unfortunate accident when, at the Parliamentary Dog Show, my Great Dane decided to protect me from a pug dog which had come too close. I landed on my knees, fracturing my legs in five places. My treatment involved three hospitals.
	The good morale of patients is as important as good staff morale. I received excellent support from many noble Lords, as well as some lovely flowers and cards. I thank especially the Minister for his support.
	The first hospital, in which I spent five days, was the Chelsea and Westminster. I found that in general the morale there was rather good. As a patient, I was pleased with the telephone system in the hospital. Every patient had a telephone which took telephone cards, which they could buy if they wanted to use the telephone. In other hospitals where no such system is in place, so many patients have a frustrating time trying to use trolleys, which take up valuable staff time. I recommend this service.
	After five days of having my legs in plaster in a general hospital, and being a paraplegic, I became concerned as conflicting views were held on how to treat me. My usual bodily functions were incredibly difficult to perform as none of the nurses knew how to cope with a paraplegic. It would have been quite easy, had they listened to the patient.
	I was fortunate to be able to go to the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital where I received the nursing care that I needed. Even more important, however, was the medical treatment. When my plaster casts were removed, I had two black heels from the pressure caused by the plasters. Having explained about pressure to the Chelsea and Westminster, I cannot stress how important it is for patients to be treated in specialised units, where their different needs will be understood. Otherwise things go wrong and morale can fall to rock bottom.
	My heels are only just healing, after a period of six months. Because of osteoporotic bones, I had external fixators instead of plaster casts put on my legs. I am grateful to the Russians for inventing this procedure. It was a quick way of getting soldiers back to the front lines. While I was in Stoke Mandeville, the Government announced that they were going to give a masterchef the job of improving hospital food. That would be a boost to patient morale. Can I ask the Minister whether this statement was just spin, or is it going to happen? It would be interesting to receive a progress report on this matter. I am sure that better food would raise morale.
	Another statement was made saying that matrons were going to be put on the wards again. Having someone in place whom people could rely on, seeing that hospitals were clean and that someone was taking overall responsibility would provide another boost to morale--as long as the people appointed have the level of ability needed. The spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville is crying out for a good senior nursing officer who would be dynamic and thus attract the much-needed capable nurses which the hospital urgently needs. Stoke Mandeville is now under new management. I hope that it will move forward and give patients the specialist healthcare that they need. When all the interested parties work together, good morale will follow.
	I have noticed that many consultants are now coming up to the age of retirement. The shortage of doctors is of great concern to patients. In hospitals, good consultants who can become effective team leaders and who can become expert in specialties win the respect and trust of patients. They can provide the biggest boost to morale in the health service, but unless there is good leadership, the standards will fall and so will morale.
	There are many keen young doctors, some from the Commonwealth countries such as South Africa, who are queuing up to be accepted on a training rotation. It seems that there are not enough surgical trainers. Universities appear to be understaffed. What can the Government do to release this blockage? Until 1997, a trained surgeon could come over to Britain to work, but after that time, the ruling was changed. I am told that the relentless pressure is making many surgeons retire early from the new National Health Service. I shall quote one surgeon who said to me that:
	"It is now no longer good enough to do your best".
	To make available specialist training for people coming from the colonies would be one way of opening the door to more specialists, thus raising morale. It is important that we have dedicated, keen young people who can speak English well and who can become experts in the many fields of medicine which at this time are very short of doctors and surgeons. Yet it is impossible for some of them to secure training. This seems to be a problem which should be a priority for the Government to rectify.
	All governments seem to want to change the National Health Service. There has been so much change, which can be bad for morale. We have heard of many cases of dilapidated wards filled with sad, elderly people who need feeding and some TLC in their difficult lives. Good people would volunteer to help in this kind of work if the leadership was forthcoming. Good management, close to patients, will raise morale and lessen growing frustration and low morale due to the ever-growing patient population, paperwork and pressures throughout the NHS.
	I have a moment in which to say how sorry I was to hear of the death of Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I am sure that he would have spoken in support of nurses in the debate today. The whole House will miss him.

Lord Rea: My Lords, about one-and-a-half hours ago, just before I came to your Lordships' House, I had my speech nicely prepared on a lap-top computer. I was about to print it out when the whole thing disappeared. Noble Lords will have to listen to some rather more disjointed remarks than perhaps is usual.
	Since I retired from front-line duties in the National Health Service, like the noble Baroness, I have gained more experience as a consumer than as a provider. However, I keep in touch with what is going on in the health service because I have a son who is a consultant oncologist, along with a daughter and a niece who are both nurses. Furthermore, I keep in contact with my professional colleagues.
	What is morale? According to Chambers, it is the,
	"condition or degree of confidence, optimism or strength of purpose in a person or group".
	When one looks at individual health workers in the National Health Service, they appear to have those qualities to a great degree, in particular when they start out. Most summon up that kind of spirit whenever they are treating patients. People who have had any experience of the health service have no complaints to make about those who work in it.
	It is the system which gets you down. Morale is eroded in a work situation where there is an excessive workload, especially if it consists of tasks set by someone over whom the individual concerned--perhaps a nurse or a doctor--has no control. Of course, health workers get a great deal of intrinsic satisfaction from their jobs--that is why they are able to tolerate a much higher workload and more unsociable hours than people in most other professions--but their tolerance can be over-stretched by pressure to carry out tasks which perhaps could be carried out equally as well by people with lesser training, against a background of increasingly critical patient demand. It is possible to work extremely long hours for a limited duration--and perhaps for a bit longer if you are well paid for it--but if there is no light at the end of the tunnel disillusion tends to set in.
	We were all delighted when the Prime Minister announced great increases in spending on the National Health Service to bring us up to the average GDP expenditure of the European Union a year or so ago. The Prime Minister's intervention occurred after he was brought face to face with the reality of the situation in a famous televised interview which took place with NHS staff at St Thomas's Hospital. This happened at about the same time as the frank and, again, famous interview given by my noble friend Lord Winston in the New Statesman, in which he said that the situation in the National Health Service was becoming intolerable. That made the Prime Minister sit up and a lot of money was promised.
	The Prime Minister said at the time that it would take a long time for that money to show through at the workface. People had a momentary sense of euphoria when it was announced, but a certain amount of disillusionment has now set in because it seems to be taking such a long time for the fruits to be experienced by the people working with patients.
	But some good plans have been laid. The national service frameworks are universally approved and the NHS Plan is, on the whole, welcomed and has the backing of professional colleagues from right across the spectrum.
	One way of improving morale in the health service would be for little things to be done locally. Most workers have innovative ideas about what could be done to improve their personal situation at their workplace. These ideas should be encouraged by trust managers. Local forums should be established and the Government should provide extra money to enable managers to implement such plans. This would make people in the front line feel that they are being listened to, and that in itself would improve morale.
	As to the situation in general practice, the BMA suggests that we need 10,000, not 2,000, new doctors. This is based on the fact that each of three extra jobs that GPs will have to carry out will require the equivalent of 3,000 general practitioners. That is three times 3,000, which makes 9,000--so 10,000 doctors altogether.
	At the moment, the new contract for GPs is being discussed at the Department of Health. I hope very much that during the coming year there will be a full and frank exchange while the contract is being developed. If any new jobs are given to GPs in that contract, the money to back them must be offered as well. I hope that the new contract will provide more incentives for doctors to work in deprived areas.
	Finally, I hope that tomorrow my noble friend will be able to agree to an amendment to allow doctors providing personal medical services--as well as those providing general medical services--to have their terms and conditions of work discussed with the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. This would set the tone for fruitful negotiations on the contract for the following year.

Lord Harris of Peckham: My Lords, I wish to speak about my experience as chairman of the Guy's and Lewisham Trust from 1991 to 1993. A shadow trust was formed in February 1991, and when I arrived I was surprised to find that morale was very low--that is something of an understatement--but that the staff, especially the nurses, were very committed to the NHS.
	Quite honestly, management did not know what to do. When one considers that Guy's and Lewisham had a budget of £148 million controlled by a general manager and a financial director, that is not surprising. Budgets were overspent in all departments; we closed eight wards at that time and operations were being cancelled.
	When I agreed to become chairman of the trust I was told that there would be a £1.5 million surplus that year. In fact, there was a £1.5 million deficit. When I asked for the budget for the next year--1991-92--I found that one had not been prepared. So the finance director, myself and the general manager worked through a budget. If we had carried on in exactly the same way as we were, the next year would have seen a £7 million deficit.
	My first job was to get a management team in place: a chief executive, a finance director, a director of nursing, who came from inside, a medical director, who came from Lewisham, two general managers--one for Lewisham and one for Guy's--and a board of non-executive directors. The team was in place within four months. I made the non-executives responsible for different parts of the hospital: one for patient care, which is very important; one for the hospital personnel; one for building maintenance; and one for buying equipment.
	Perhaps I may give the House two amazing figures. When I arrived at Guy's, the drugs budget was £2.8 million per year. When I left two years later, the drugs budget was £850,000 per year--a huge saving which went towards patient care. The wastage in drugs at Guy's was colossal.
	Of course, we had to make £7 million-worth of savings. It was very difficult to explain to staff that we had to make those savings--after just getting there and becoming the flagship trust in London. Of course, most of the savings had to come through staff redundancies. We did not take any doctors, nurses or sisters--we made sure that patient care was strong--and most of the posts were lost through natural wastage. Of course, it was not a popular decision at the time.
	However, we worked closely with our staff; we had meetings, and staff morale started to improve. I believed that it was not a case of throwing money at the problem but about better management of the money that we received.
	After six months, I produced charters to tell people what we were going to achieve and how we were going to achieve it. At the beginning, everyone thought that this was a gimmick; at the end, they were very pleased with what we were doing. If any noble Lords would like copies, I shall be pleased to provide them.
	As to the charters, I first made sure that we did not run out of money every February and March. I budgeted that we spent 45 per cent of our money in the first half of the year and 55 per cent in the second half. That meant that when other hospitals were running out of money and could not treat patients, we could. In the first full year of our trust we treated 6,000 more in-patients--a 10 per cent increase on the previous year. Eighty-five per cent of people waited no longer than 30 minutes in the out-patients department; 90 per cent of patients waited less than 12 months to be admitted--a 12-month wait is not very good, but in the previous year the waiting time was more than double that. We improved the sign-posting of the hospital; and we sent a card to every patient asking what he or she thought of our service. We did all that without any increase in income.
	The big change took place on 6th January 1992. We gave all low-paid staff--those earning less than £4.92 an hour--a £6 bonus for turning up to work five days a week. The attendance rate was less than 70 per cent. After we started paying the bonus it rose to over 90 per cent. Our approach was self-funding, and over a full year it produced a saving of over £1 million.
	When the details of the running of Guy's were looked into, it was found that 2,000 staff were paid weekly in cash. Imagine the cost. So we changed to paying those people monthly, and that paid us back over 12 months. We took a risk and we lost some money, but overall it saved us more than half a million pounds--more money for patient care. Any new staff were subject to the same conditions.
	In 1992, supervisors in the NHS received £2.50 more than an ordinary worker--about £5.15 per hour. We changed that. There were 45 supervisors at Guy's hospital and about 38 at Lewisham. At Guy's alone we cut the number back to 25, but we gave those people £1,500 more in the first year and £2,500 more in the second. That represented a saving to the hospital of £290,000--again, more money for patient care.
	We reduced the hours of junior doctors. By the end of 1992, no junior doctor worked more than 72 hours a week. We did so by changing the way in which blood samples taken by junior doctors were delivered to the laboratories for testing. It was done by the doctors themselves. We introduced a system whereby porters did it for them, which meant that the doctors spent more time treating patients rather than carrying samples around.
	In 1992-93 we treated 6,500 more in-patients--a rise of over 10 per cent. Over the year, our waiting list was reduced from 2,200 to 680. The goal for the following year was to reduce the figure to nil. In fact, we got it down to 150.
	It is important that a hospital should be clean and tidy; so we decided to paint the exterior of the whole hospital. We received an estimate of over £2.5 million for the work. We decided to employ 22 of our own painters. They took 12 months to do the job and the cost was under £1 million--again, a big saving to go towards patient care.
	In order to increase morale in the hospital, which was already rising sharply, we gave the nurses in each ward a small budget, a small equipment grant, of £2,500 every six months. We let them choose what they wanted for their wards instead of making the choices ourselves, not knowing what they wanted. We put a system in place whereby out-patients would be seen within 30 minutes and GP referrals would receive a response within 10 days, against a previous period of three weeks.
	Those are just a few of our achievements over the two and a half years of my chairmanship. In real terms, we saved £20 million each year. Over the two years we treated over 13,000 patients, and we provided a much better service for patients. I am still proud of the fact that the unions wrote to the hospital management stating:
	"It is the best the hospital has been run in the last 20 years".
	I am very pleased to say that when I left Guy's morale was very high. Throwing money at problems is not the answer. It is a matter of getting the right management in place.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He did so many practical things of which I thoroughly approve, and with marvellous results.
	Listening to the complaints from those in the health service, morale certainly appears to be low. Complaints relate to paperwork, bureaucracy, long hours, staff shortages and the lack of relief staff when someone is off sick. Even today we have heard of the discredited position in which NICE finds itself. We were waiting to hear about the abolition of postcode prescribing, but that has not happened. It is still considering whether or not certain drugs for multiple sclerosis should be available on the NHS. It is my belief that a decision has been put off because of the election.
	There was a Question earlier today from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about fluoride. The water authorities have made it clear that unless fluoridation of the water supply is made mandatory they will not go ahead with it because they are not prepared to face possible litigation; also, there is an added cost and their shareholders would complain about that. I hope that fluoridation will be made mandatory.
	Two other speakers referred to the loss of status in the professions. That is true whether one is a GP, a consultant or a dentist. All those in the caring professions have been left so far behind financially in comparison to those working in the financial industries or in big business that people feel it strongly. There is the question of stress. There is also the threat of litigation. Now, everyone has to be so careful in everything that is done because we have become a litigation-conscious country. The National Health Service has to keep putting more money away to deal with that. It used to be good enough if you did your best for patients; now, it is not good enough.
	There are also the constant announcements of what is supposedly new money going into the health service. People then find that it is not new money at all; it is money that has been mentioned before. All their hopes are raised and then dashed. Expectations are possibly the worst aspect. I know from personal experience as a hospital trust chairman that people believed that when the country had a Labour government all their problems would be solved. Yesterday, a right reverend Prelate said that people had even prayed for a Labour government in order to solve the matter of compensation for the miners. That is a typical example.
	Over the past four years, in answer to almost every Question I have asked about the health service, I have been told that the Government inherited the problems from the Conservative government. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has stopped saying that. Four years on, I cannot honestly accept that story. The question now is: "Well, what have you done in the four years?".
	I practised as a dentist in the National Health Service for 35 years. That was the bottom end of the line. Dentistry is almost a thing of the past in NHS terms, although outside London it is still working well in some areas. I was fascinated to meet a dentist recently who is building new surgeries in the north-east of England and who has been told that for his five surgeries he must have 20 car-parking spaces. It fascinated me--in London, one would be lucky to have a surgery, let alone a car-parking space.
	There are good things, and there are things that are mixed. The mixture was referred to my noble friend Lady Eccles. There are too many changes. For as long as I can remember people have been reorganising the health service. Every time it is just beginning to run smoothly, someone comes along and reorganises it again. We have had area health authorities; and when I first started there were executive councils. There is constant change. People are so busy adjusting to all the changes, and they involve so much extra work, that they are never able to catch up. Now it is the intention to involve the local authorities again. I was a member of an area health authority at a time when we had local authority representation. It certainly did not do us any good--in fact, it did a great deal of harm. The local councillors never turned up to meetings because they had so much else to do. They could not spare the time for the health service as well. All these things are about the swing of the pendulum. We had all the problems about junior hospital doctors being overworked. By the time that problem was solved, it was a case of the consultants being overworked.
	We all wanted a higher status for nurses. Sure enough, they can now gain degrees, which is marvellous. But the entry qualifications required have prevented those who do not attain sufficient A-levels from entering nursing. I believe that those people have a great role to play in the health service. There should be an opportunity for them to work for the NHS under some kind of nursing assistant scheme.
	I am delighted about the major role that pharmacists will play. They will take a load off the doctors in terms of prescribing, and so on, and provide an immediate first base for people to approach. Everyone has a local pharmacist--certainly in built-up areas--and this is a good move. However, I accept that there will never be enough money for the health service. I believe that it is time for the Government to review prescription charges; indeed, only a Labour government could do so. As I am the right age, I receive all my prescriptions free; but why should I? I could well afford to pay for them. I read in newspaper reports--and I know it is true--that many people go to their GP simply to get a prescription for something that might cost them less than £1 over the counter. But because they can get it free, they go to a GP and take up his or her time in order to get the prescription.
	As I said, there will never be enough money for the NHS. But morale and pride in one's work are the really marvellous concepts that exist in the health service. All of those working in it are to be congratulated on the wonderful job that they carry out under difficult circumstances. Above all, they need to know that the work they are doing is appreciated both by those receiving the care and the public in general. The patient is the most important consideration. The true, genuine and dedicated National Health Service worker does put the patient first. That will always help people to retain pride in their work, and lead to good morale.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for introducing this debate today. However, at this stage I have to declare an interest as I am a special trustee at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and, up until last month, I was Honorary Colonel to 306 Field Hospital of the Territorial Army.
	Although the NHS is in a critical state with trusts, consultants, GPs, nurses, administrators, ancillary staff and porters whose morale can go no lower, it should not be forgotten that all these people do a magnificent job under the most frustrating conditions. I praise them for the way that they continue to do their work; I praise them for their dedicated commitment to their profession; I praise them for their concern for and care of their patients; and I praise them for their loyalty to the hospitals where they work.
	The NHS will not improve unless radical steps are taken immediately, not over a period until 2004, but now, this year. According to various surveys, more than 75 per cent of personnel in the North West could not cope with their workload and in the South East some 70 per cent said that there was a shortage of staff. Forty eight per cent of hospital staff felt communications in their trust were poor; 37 per cent thought they were not well enough protected from attack and abuse; and 30 per cent thought they had not been trained well enough.
	The Government must stop pretending to the general public that everything is all right within the NHS and that their proposals due to be implemented over the next few years will solve the state of low morale and resolve all the problems that are causing this crisis in the NHS. They will not. Unless urgent action is taken now the NHS may implode.
	So what are these problems? One is increasing workloads, bureaucratic form filling and staff shortages. And one of the reasons for deteriorating morale is the low rates of pay that the Government are prepared to pay consultants, GPs and nurses. Clearly the solution here lies in even higher levels of pay, although they were increased from 1st April this year. The pay for Inner London nurses has risen between 3.7 per cent and 9 per cent. This brings the starting pay for a new nurse to about £19,000, including all allowances. The basic pay for a grade D nurse is only some £15,000.
	One survey stated that there are 20,000 vacancies for nurses and that vacancies for physiotherapists had nearly doubled. If it is not possible to increase the rates of pay further, the Government should make even greater efforts to recruit doctors and nurses from overseas English-speaking countries. Some years ago, the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital recruited successfully Dutch and Finnish nurses on a three-year contract, and they much enjoyed being in London. I spoke to them on several occasions and they fitted in well, were highly efficient and were well liked by patients and staff. Perhaps the Minister will address that point when he responds.
	Another factor is the high cost of living in London. The Inner London allowance of £2,635, plus 5 per cent of salary, goes virtually nowhere towards covering these high costs. There is a lack of affordable accommodation and staff at all levels have difficulty finding somewhere to live, particularly in the centre of London. It is clearly necessary to pay a meaningful London allowance to those working in London. Perhaps the Minister, again, will comment.
	There is a lack of childcare facilities. This is becoming more and more important to staff in their choice of their workplace and employer. There has been an increase in aggression and abuse against staff, which is demoralising and upsetting. It is certainly no help to those suffering from low morale and stress. It would appear that NHS staff have no recourse to any form of redress. There is a general feeling of not being involved in management issues and decision-making processes, brought about by a clear lack of leadership.
	Lastly, I should like to touch on funding, which currently does not allow the system to have the flexibility that managers need. The dissemination of funding from central government can have a stop/start effect as it is distributed in tranches which does not allow for seamless planning of schemes.
	Ministry of Defence health units located in National Health Service hospitals come under the Defence Medical Services secondary care system linked to the NHS. There is a strong requirement for close liaison between the MoD and the NHS. There are three important aspects about the military use of the NHS since military hospitals were closed. These are the need for fast tracking of servicemen and women for hospital treatment and operations; the removal of families from hospital waiting lists every time that they are posted to new stations causing, in some cases, years of frustrating delay; and the immediate need for physiotherapy when Armed Forces personnel damage limbs in training and sport.
	Key targets were set earlier this year for the Defence Secondary Care Agency by the MoD. Key Target 2 concerning outpatient waiting times was intended to ensure that 45 per cent of service patients were offered a first outpatient appointment within four weeks of a referral and 90 per cent within 13 weeks. Key Target 3 concerning inpatient waiting times was to ensure that 80 per cent of service patients were offered a treatment date within 13 weeks of the decision to give inpatient treatment. Perhaps the Minister will say what instructions were given by the NHS to ensure that these targets are met and what action is being taken about waiting lists when service families are moved from one station to another. Can the Minister also confirm that the successful Treasury-funded waiting list initiative will be extended?
	I do not wish my comments to be seen as criticising the hard working and dedicated people--the GPs, consultants, and nursing staff--who are carrying out an excellent job under stress and under bad management from the NHS. They are to be praised. My criticism is directed at the Government who have allowed the NHS to reach a critical stage where it has clearly lost its ability to manage personnel and is in need of greater leadership in running the service.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, I must confess that I have an interest to declare: I am not well. I have a cold, but I have brought myself here today, as the noble Baroness did, because of the subject under debate. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, most sincerely not merely for tabling the debate but also for the manner in which she introduced it. I believe that that has helped the tenor of the debate; indeed, there has been no acrimony at all.
	Of course, there has been some hard hitting in the debate based on experience. I am delighted to observe the level of experience that rests in this House, which is of the highest level. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who pointed out just what a dismal record the NHS had in 1991 in the hospital of which he subsequently became chairman and which he then improved. I enjoyed particularly the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who speaks with great authority as the chairman of a successful hospital.
	One of the topics that I studied for my Open University degree in the early 1970s was that of decision-making. In that connection I considered the National Health Service. Of course there is scope for improvement in the way in which a big organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees takes its decisions. However, it is a colossal task to manage the National Health Service.
	People have spoken from their experience and I shall speak from mine. Perhaps noble Lords can see a scar just below my eye. That scar resulted from a fight in which I was involved at the age of 11, some 65 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, will know Rye Hill which runs down to Scotswood Road where I then lived. In that fight a boy stabbed me. Fortunately for me I was stabbed in the cheekbone. If I had been stabbed half an inch higher, the knife could have entered my eye and I could have been killed. My dad was not even on the dole; he was on a means test. Seven of us lived on 37 shillings a week. The doctor gave my mother a bill for his services which she paid at the rate of threepence a week for two years. When I think of the situation at that time I reflect on the ease with which people, quite rightly, are now able to receive treatment. I ask noble Lords to mention morale and to point out shortages and what is wrong, but also to remember the situation before the National Health Service came into being.
	In 1948 there was a great political battle with regard to establishing the National Health Service. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is present. He was the PPS to Aneurin Bevan at that time. We should try to remember what has been achieved. Reference has been made to our dear friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. When I was Chief Whip he was my deputy. Sadly, he passed away. He rose from his sick bed in June 1998 to ask an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. He said:
	"My Lords, I am not what I seem. I am No. 445590 Morris, Brian, d.o.b. 4.12.30, male, C of E. I know this because it was written on the little plastic bracelet placed on my wrist on 21st January last when I became a patient in The Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, whence I came this morning to ask the Question standing in my name".--[Official Report, 16/6/98; col. 1539.]
	My noble friend died of leukaemia. I quote further from his speech of June 1998. That was made some three years ago within 12 months of a Labour Government taking office. He further said at col. 1539:
	"The facts are not in dispute. We are facing the worst nurse shortage crisis in 25 years: the first ever shortfall in applications for nurse education places in England. In 1993/4 there were 18,100 applications for 12,000 places. In 1996/7 there were 15,400 applications for 16,100 places. Turnover among registered nurses was 21 per cent. in 1997, up from 12 per cent. in 1992. Vacancies remain unfilled. One report in 1997 suggested that there was a shortage of more than 8,000 full-time posts across Britain. The Royal College of Nursing reports that the number of nurses aged over 55 will double over the next five years, with 25 per cent. of registered nurses in the NHS eligible for retirement by the year 2000".
	Some may ask: what is new? I listened with deep respect to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham. Lord Morris of Castle Morris had great experience of the National Health Service.
	In addition to the incident that I mentioned earlier, during the war my guts were shot out accidentally. I lay on a hillside in Wales at death's door. That incident resulted from what is now known as "friendly fire". I had my intestines in my hand, but I survived. The House has heard of the thrombosis that I suffered some three years ago when I flew back from Australia. On landing I was rushed into Whipps Cross Hospital where I received wonderful treatment.
	My local GP is Dr Anwar Khan at the Loughton Health Centre. My wife suffers from the hereditary condition of Dystrophia myotonia which she has passed on to our two sons and I suffer from thrombosis, my prostate situation and diabetes. We visit the surgery regularly. We are one of Dr Khan's best customers. Round the corner there is a Co-op chemist. Therefore, I have good facilities at my disposal.
	I doubt whether anything has been said this afternoon that was not already known to the Minister and his advisers. I hope that he will recognise the concern that has been expressed and that he and his colleagues will do a great deal to improve the situation. However, at the end of the day, I say, "Thank God for the National Health Service".

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I speak with some diffidence bearing in mind how many noble Lords have direct, extensive experience of the NHS which I do not have except as a very occasional patient. However, I am deeply grateful for the service that it has given my family. I was particularly pleased to hear the comments of my noble friend Lord Harris, as my mother was a patient at Guy's at the time of his beneficent reign there. She greatly profited from the great care and skill that was accorded to her in that hospital.
	However, I am concerned about the extent to which we organise and reorganise the NHS. That point was touched on earlier, but I make no apology for mentioning it again as we must learn from experience that we need to allow time for reorganisations to be put into effect and for people to settle down in a stable environment.
	I give an example which is personal in the sense that it affects a friend of mine who in early middle age left the commercial world, of which she had a great deal of experience, as she wanted to enter management in the NHS because she felt that it was a caring, serving organisation to which she wished to contribute. It was an idealistic decision. She worked in a difficult area of London at a time when fundholding was the "in" thing. It had been introduced by the previous government. She worked extraordinarily hard among about 64 GPs in a multiple fundholding system. She developed the system successfully and she felt that the doctors were happy and that the patients received far more services as a result of the change. She felt that she had done a good job.
	However, scarcely had she reached that point when a change of government occurred and fundholding was "out" and primary care groups were "in". She started all over again with renewed enthusiasm to develop what was asked of her by the incoming government. However, she subsequently discovered that primary care trusts were proposed. Her previous work is now being subsumed in a new system. When I talked to her earlier in the week, I detected a certain weariness. Her sparkle and enthusiasm had disappeared to some extent. She still wanted to be of service to the NHS but there was the feeling that whatever one did, and however well one did it, before the benefits could be reaped there would be a further change and one would start all over again. I ask this Government or any other government to think carefully. However good is the theory for changing organisation, there is a limit to what individuals in the health service or any other organisation can take and still retain their enthusiasm.
	I turn to the issue of GPs. I am not sure that I have ever heard so many complaints from doctors as we have done recently. It indicates an underlying malaise which is extraordinarily worrying bearing in mind that the majority of work is carried out in the front line by GPs. If we are not retaining them--they seek early retirement or other posts--that is worrying.
	I note that the BMA has sought to increase the average amount of time that a GP spends with a patient to 15 minutes. That implies that at present, on average, the period must be well under that. I can recall the days when MPs had "surgeries". Unless the matter was very easy indeed, I should have found it extraordinarily difficult to deal with someone in under 15 minutes. Perhaps I was not a good manager of time, but it seemed to me that people often needed to relax before one came to the main problems from which they were suffering. For patients and doctors, too short a time is very dispiriting and demoralising. If we are going to see further shortages of GPs the situation can only get worse; and that worries me greatly.
	I am also worried about the excessive targeting and monitoring to which the medical profession and the professions ancillary to it are now subject. Of course in theory it is wise to know what is happening: that we have certain important targets to reach. But if those targets are impossible to reach, that, too, can have a demoralising effect. Let us take one issue about which the doctors are worried. We understand that the "great paper" proposes that by 2004 every patient must be seen by a GP within 48 hours of asking to see a GP. Many doctors believe that the proposal is impossible: that it is another worry. One wonders whether such a general target is valuable. Presumably, the period covers both emergency and routine appointments. If it is routine, 48 hours is not remarkable. If the situation is an emergency, or very urgent, 48 hours may be too long. For a mother whose child turns out to be suffering from meningitis, it would undoubtedly be too long. Therefore I ask the Minister to query this obsession with targets and monitoring. We need to attract GPs and other health service workers by offering good conditions. Then I believe that many of those other matters will fall into place.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for missing some of the earlier speeches, and for missing my slot. I had assumed that I would be speaking rather later. I am grateful for being allowed to speak in the gap, perhaps mercifully in a somewhat abbreviated form.
	The pressures of work on doctors and nurses are undoubtedly heavy. It is not just clinical work with patients; many are working at or beyond the limits of their capacity and feel that they are failing their patients. I know that the Government have started the process of reversing this downward trend and we are grateful for that. But it will take time--perhaps 10 years or more--for the effects to be felt. Unfortunately, meanwhile we are beginning to lose the good will and energy of our most precious resources--our disillusioned nurses and doctors.
	With noble Lords' permission, I should like to suggest three or four actions which, taken now, might make a more immediate difference. First, I know of many consultants in hospitals who are retiring in their late 50s. They want to be relieved of the burden of full-time responsibility for all that a consultant job now entails but would like to work perhaps part time, concentrating simply on caring for patients and teaching young doctors, free of all other administrative burdens.
	The Government have accepted that it is a shameful waste of a precious, trained resource not to take advantage of those people. But in practice I know of many such doctors who are being refused by trusts which say that they cannot afford to re-employ people in this way. What a ridiculous waste of an opportunity when we are trying to reduce waiting lists and to bring in more young doctors from the medical schools to help to plug the gap. We must find a way through the problem.
	Secondly, I am told that doctors on the wards are constantly distracted by having to do clerical work: seeking case notes; tracking down X-ray and laboratory results; or phoning for patients to come in. Those are jobs which ward clerks and secretaries could and should do, but in many hospitals there are nowhere near enough of these essential support staff. We need more secretaries, clerks and porters. If we double the current numbers, we shall have a more effective and efficient use of our doctors and nurses as those unnecessary pressures are taken off them.
	Thirdly, we should be taking a grip on the computerised IT systems supporting the clinical work at the ward level. Current systems are often either out of date or inadequate. Yet we know that good supportive IT, providing, for example, rapid bedside access to tests results--one might think that that would be fairly simple--would bring welcome relief to staff who spend too much of their precious time phoning around for information.
	I realise that different hospitals need many other types of action which, taken now, would have an observable effect perhaps within 10 months rather than the 10 years projected for the major government initiatives in train. I propose that the Government set up yet another task force with the specific remit to develop ideas for short-term--for perhaps a period of one or two years--improvements and efficiency. I suggest that this task force be made up of the great and the good; namely, a ward sister; a non-political doctor in training; a good manager; a GP; and, of course, a patient. They know so much more about how the NHS could be run more effectively at the coalface. I could even suggest some names if the Minister cares to take forward the proposal, as I hope that he will.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on raising the issue of morale in the NHS. It has been a superb debate, drawing on the personal experience of so many noble Lords. That is one of the great strengths of this House.
	Morale is not a new issue. The NHS has suffered for decades from under-investment, most notably during the 18 years of the last Conservative government, and we on these Benches would say from the demoralising effect of the internal market reforms of which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was such an enthusiastic architect. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the very training cuts instituted by the Conservatives under their term have impacted on patients and NHS staff morale.
	At the last general election, the Labour Party promised to save the NHS within a period of days. Instead, the Government spent three years unnecessarily locked into the Conservative spending plans that they inherited, which had caused the problem in the first place. We now know that this Government have spent less of the national income on the NHS than the Conservatives did in their last term of office.
	Even the new NHS Plan falls far short of the Prime Minister's declared aim of bringing health spending in Britain up to the levels of our European neighbours. By 2004, it will account for about 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product but it will still fall far short of our European neighbours. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, outcomes in many areas are very poor compared with the United States and with other European countries.
	The Liberal Democrats agree with many of the goals in last year's belated national plan, but there has been a mad dash to get things done over the past year, with no time to build capacity. At the end of the year, some of the money was underspent. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly pointed out that there had been very little time to produce results.
	That failure to spend early enough in the course of the Parliament has resulted in the problems outlined by so many noble Lords today: a shortage of beds, unacceptably long waits for treatment and a crisis in numbers for all staff--nurses, midwives, doctors and professions allied to medicine. That has led to overwork and breaches of the European Working Time Directive, which is a very important means of protecting NHS staff. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, refer to that. NHS staff are still woefully underpaid and leaving in large numbers. The Government have failed to create enough consultant posts, as a result of poor workforce planning. There are arguments about the regulatory arrangements in many professions. There are also changes in clinical governance and problems of revalidation.
	As many noble Lords have pointed out, change is at the root of some of the problems and it is all taking place at the same time. There are arguments about contracts, particularly for hospital doctors and GPs. We have a lack of training places for young doctors in a large number of specialties. We have over-centralisation of funding, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. There is micro-management, with a proliferation of targets for issues such as waiting lists and throughputs, the introduction of performance management and a welter of centrally driven initiatives in primary and acute care. As a result, we now have a major crisis of morale and a massive number of unfilled vacancies, especially among senior consultant posts. Those problems have resulted in yesterday's industrial action by general practitioners, the ballot of GPs and the threats to resign next year. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, put the problem very well: that spark of enthusiasm has been or is being snuffed out among many staff.
	Four out of five GPs surveyed want to leave the NHS. My noble friend Lady Northover mentioned suicide levels. There has been a massive loss of confidence in the NHS. We should tackle that rather than denying it. Some 65 per cent of people recently surveyed said that the NHS was either the same or worse under Labour compared with the situation under the Tories. The figures are even worse among doctors, with 75 per cent believing that the situation is worse. The retirement figures evidence that. I wonder how many doctors or other health professionals would advise their children to go into the NHS. I am afraid that the answers would be highly negative in many respects. That is very regrettable.
	Even on current plans, the NHS will continue to lack the capacity to give patients the first-class treatment that they deserve. It is still short of staff and beds--acute, critical, intermediate or residential.
	As my noble friends have explained, that view of NHS morale is not just anecdotal but is based securely on a survey of staff opinions carried out by NHS trusts in England and Wales last year, collated by my honourable friend Mr Burstow. That important collection of hard data paints a poor picture.
	I do not intend to go through the worrying figures that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned. Some 48 per cent feel that communication in their trust is not good. Communication is essential to morale, even excluding any overwork or capacity problems. Those results are stark evidence of how low morale has sunk in the NHS.
	It is extraordinary that the Government have made no attempt to standardise the questions in the survey, pull the results together and publish them. The Minister ought to tell us why, because the Government intended trusts to carry out those surveys. The trusts did so, but nothing further happened. The results provide a unique snapshot of the views of NHS staff. We should start producing real information as a matter of urgency.
	Belatedly, at the 11th hour, the Government are introducing a system of golden hellos, golden goodbyes and extra cash to attract GPs to deprived parts of the country. This morning, the Secretary of State made an overdue pledge to increase the number of midwives.
	The key issue is not purely management or purely leadership. It is a matter of resources and capacity. At the coming election, the Liberal Democrats will pledge to provide extra training places for doctors, nurses and professions allied to medicine, as my noble friend Lady Northover outlined. We cannot deny that the shortage of staff is the main problem that faces the NHS at the start of the 21st century. Given how long it takes to train doctors or nurses, we should have started some time ago because we have an urgent problem on our hands. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, about other staff whose services are key to the efficient deployment of those highly trained professionals. The failure to invest in staff training places through the late 1980s and the 1990s, compounded by the failure of the present Government to grasp the nettle early enough, has been one of the key problems.
	Pay has been at the root of many of the problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was particularly cogent on that. Nurses, midwives and other professional staff have not received the financial remuneration that they need. We must improve their pay as a matter of urgency. We have many proposals for doing that.
	We also need to provide additional beds. To an extent, the number of beds relates to the number of staff available, but it is also a matter of facilities. The Government's track record on PFI has not been happy. We do not believe that PFI is the best instrument for delivering additional beds. There is no transparency in the comparison between financing beds through PFI and through pure public spending. PFI has not helped to increase the number of beds--indeed, if anything it has led to a decline. All that contributes to a feeling that the NHS is changing beyond recognition and to a lack of morale. It is vital to review the criteria by which PFI contracts are judged.
	The Liberal Democrats are strong supporters of the NHS. We want to give members of staff cause for optimism. They do a fantastic job under the current circumstances. I agree with many noble Lords who have said that. We have the diagnosis and the prescription. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will now administer the correct treatment.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for drawing attention to morale in the NHS, which is an emotive subject at the moment. She is right that it is the people who really count--the doctors, the nurses, the consultants, the midwives, the managers and all the other NHS staff, who are working under such trying circumstances. We pay tribute to them. I am proud of my sister, a registered general nurse, married to a consultant surgeon in the NHS.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we have heard some excellent and well informed speeches. I doubt whether the Minister will have enjoyed listening to many of them. He may enjoy tomorrow even less!
	Like other noble Lords, I very much associate these Benches with the warm words said about Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
	My noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham spoke movingly of the very great achievements of the Guys and Lewisham Trust during his chairmanship. My noble friend Lord Vivian mentioned the Defence Medical Services. I join him in stressing to the Minister the urgent need for the NHS to ensure that there is a fast-track system for the Armed Forces and that, on a new posting, service families receive priority medical treatment.
	As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, four years ago, almost to the day, many in the NHS welcomed the arrival of the Labour Government. That good will has been completely eroded by the constant flow of new government initiatives and targets, the witch hunts and the failures to tackle recruitment and retention. Now GPs and hospital consultants are on the verge of open warfare; Ministers face growing militancy from midwives; and nurses have major concerns over their workload. Managers are defensive and demoralised. It gives my party no pleasure to see that happening. We all want a strong and flourishing NHS.
	A survey to be published in tomorrow's Health Service Journal will show that poor morale, an ever-increasing workload, a lack of resources and a keen desire for less government intervention are the starkest findings. Like patients, those who work in public healthcare recall the Prime Minister's,
	"24 hours to save the NHS".
	Within little more than a year, the Prime Minister was saying that huge sums of money would also be needed.
	Despite the much vaunted extra money and the massive increase in advertising for Labour's health policies, people began to ask why things were getting worse. The Prime Minister identified numerous scapegoats. Whatever the problem and however serious it was, someone other than the Government was always to blame. Doctors were particular targets for scapegoating from the Secretary of State.
	The UK has the lowest ratio of doctors per head of population in the OECD--1.7 doctors per 1,000 people, compared with the EU average of 3.4. Therefore, doctors are working long hours, to a high intensity, under considerable stress. That is compounded by the setting of targets which are often little more than wish lists and, in many cases, largely undeliverable.
	The NHS Plan states that between now and 2004 there will be 2,000 more GPs. However, according to the GPC joint deputy chairman, morale among GPs is so low that,
	"those who can afford to go will do so as soon as they can. In 2004, there could be 2,000 fewer doctors--not 2,000 more".
	Nursing is at the core of health provision, and the success of the Government's plans for the NHS depends upon adequate numbers of skilled nurses. However, the Government are failing to increase their numbers or to augment retention. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned nurse training places. I point out to her that those were very much on the way up, not on the way down, when my party left office.
	Eight out of 10 nurses feel that the NHS is a worse place in which to work than it was two years ago. For them, as for other NHS staff, too many changes have taken place too quickly: first, the primary care groups and trusts; now, the modernisation plan. For most nurses, just getting through a shift is difficult enough. My noble friends Lady Eccles, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Fookes each emphasised the burdens that change puts on health professionals.
	Nurses are increasingly subject to ever-higher patient expectations. That has led to more aggression and abuse. They are three times more likely to be assaulted on the job than are police officers. In many hospitals, basic working conditions are sub-standard. The Government's disastrous handling of the care homes sector is having a knock-on effect on bed utilisation in hospitals and adds to the pressure on nurses.
	The RCN is asking for the creation of more consultant nurse posts across the UK and for the provision of thorough support, combined with clear monitoring of trusts to ensure that their pay adequately reflects their role. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government's thinking on that point.
	Declining morale in the NHS has a knock-on effect on patients, who have suffered the consequences of being fast-tracked through the system, being squeezed as extra appointments into out-patient clinics, and discharged at lightning speed. That increases the risk of accident and error. Doctors should not be practising at a pace which jeopardises patient safety. The pressure on GPs to reduce consultation periods cannot possibly mean that patients receive the level of treatment that they have every right to expect.
	However, despite the Government's distortion of clinical priorities through the waiting list initiative, patients are waiting longer than ever before. According to a King's Fund analysis, more than 2 million people are waiting to see a hospital consultant either for diagnosis or treatment, and the number shows no sign of declining. Last September, 436,000 people had waited more than three months to see a specialist. More than half of them were in pain.
	Managers feel battered by the constantly enlarging management workload and by the Secretary of State's implied, but strong, criticism of health authority managers last week. My noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out that a steady trickle of the most senior managers are leaving the NHS.
	We on these Benches have always realised that the challenges that continuously face the NHS are formidable: the pace of technology; the need for highly trained and experienced staff; the demographic changes taking place in Britain; and the aim that we all share to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery. Yet, the response of this Government has been very damaging.
	Hard-working medical professionals are tired of the spin; they are tired of being the scapegoats for the Labour Government's failures; and they are tired of more interference, centralisation and red tape. That was well articulated by Dr Lockley from Bedfordshire in Doctor magazine, who said:
	"The Government doesn't relate to the real NHS at all. Instead, Ministers have a virtual reality NHS into which they put all their efforts, and to which they look for their answers. This shiny new NHS is quite different from the gritty, grimy NHS in which we all work".
	After four years of hard Labour, Britain, the world's fourth largest economic power, really does deserve better.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on securing this debate. I congratulate her also on the quality of her speech, which set a very high standard. It has, indeed, been a very good debate, and all noble Lords have brought a wealth of experience to the House this afternoon.
	Morale has been much talked about. As my noble friend Lord Haskel suggested, the issue of morale has been around for as long as the NHS has been in existence. When I joined the NHS in 1972, I remember being told by my more experienced colleagues that morale had never been lower. Those of us who have been in the NHS know that morale never having been lower is a characteristic of our working experience.
	I take the advice of my noble friend Lord Graham, who suggested that we must always keep the NHS's achievements in mind. One characteristic of the NHS has been the fact that it talks up its problems and talks down its achievements. In saying that, I do not discount the pressures that people are under. The pressure is there; there is no question about that. Public expectations are rising all the time; again, there is no question about that. We are asking a lot of the people who work in the NHS.
	Unlike some noble Lords who spoke today, I have been struck over the past few years by the excitement and enthusiasm of many people who work in the NHS. They are driving forward necessary change, breaking down the barriers that have often existed between the different professions in the NHS, producing real innovation and securing improved services for patients. I place on record my thanks to the dedicated staff of the NHS and stress how much we owe to them. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who praised those people.
	Noble Lords opposite were unsparing in their criticisms. I regret that in their critique of this Government's record they failed to mention the contribution that their government made for 18 years to the problems that the NHS has had to face up to. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that I still consider it to be my responsibility to draw the attention of noble Lords to the many failings of the previous government in their stewardship of the NHS.
	It is worthy of note that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has made an extraordinary contribution to the NHS--I suspect that she is the only person in this country who understands the full mechanism of NHS finance--did not mention the paper-chase of the internal market; the glaring inconsistencies and inequalities in the service received by patients under the previous government's stewardship; their neglect of staff, which was most notably indicated by the staging of pay awards recommended by the independent pay review bodies; or the 28 per cent cut in nurse training places.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who promises me a rough time tomorrow, that there may have been a move away from the damaging cuts of the early 1990s but, frankly, those cuts were so great that it would have been almost impossible not to have improved on the situation. Finally, noble Lords opposite made no mention of the utter lack of ownership among NHS staff in relation to the internal market changes.
	In contrast, this Government have placed the NHS at the core of their endeavours, as my noble friend Lord Rea said. We have set record levels of investment in the NHS. We have set new national standards for services for cancer, heart disease, mental health and the care of older people. We have created much greater transparency over local service performance. We have created a new legal duty of quality and a new system of clinical governance to enshrine improvements throughout the NHS. We have established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which evaluates new treatments. We have for the first time an independent inspectorate, the Commission for Health Improvement. We have established new systems for when things go wrong and that help us to learn from what goes right. We have met the pay award recommendations of the independent pay review bodies in full over the past three years. We are giving staff such as nurses a much greater say in deciding the shape of local services. I respond in a positive manner to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Rea that we should build on that. The £5,000 sums that we have given to ward sisters to spend on environmental improvements to their wards has been a remarkable success. I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that matter. There is a real sense of ownership because we have given responsibility back at that level.
	We are moving towards a patient-centred service with immediate benefits. Who can discount the impact of the booked-admissions system, which was introduced in each trust in at least two high-volume specialties or conditions? Long patient waiting times are being reduced.
	Expansion is under way. There are more staff--and more staff yet to come--and there are more beds in hospitals. I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the PFI. However, he did not acknowledge that we have in place the biggest hospital-building programme that this country has ever seen. It involves modernising 220 accident and emergency departments and more than 1,100 GP surgeries. More operations are also being undertaken. I say to the noble Lord that there is of course a long way to go. I know that staff are under real pressure. I also acknowledge that it takes time for investment to be felt at the front line. However, investment is getting through and it will be sustained.
	I take very seriously the comments that noble Lords made this afternoon on the involvement of NHS staff. Such involvement ensured that the views of NHS staff on the NHS were vital to the formulation of the NHS Plan. What NHS staff wanted became apparent to us in the consultation that we undertook. They wanted to see more staff; more training; more joined-up working with social services; less bureaucracy; more action to prevent ill health; better working conditions; faster delivery of services; more focus on patients; less variation in services across the country; and less control from Whitehall. The whole idea of developing the NHS Plan was to involve the staff. All the provisions in that plan are being delivered somewhere within the NHS--the challenge is to have them applied consistently.
	We have no hope of delivering the NHS Plan unless we can increase our capacity. One of our first priorities was to get more staff into place. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was absolutely right to point to the crucial importance of doing that. It is important to understand, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the shortfall that we have had to face up to--it involves many thousands of doctors, nurses, therapists and scientists--came about because of decisions that were made in the early 1990s. If there is one lesson that must be learned from that, it is that we must never again engage in such drastic cutbacks in training places.
	The NHS Plan, which was published last July, stated that by 2004 there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more general practitioners, 1,000 more specialist registrars, 20,000 more nurses and 6,500 more therapists and other professionals. We are beginning to see the impact of that. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of staff in the NHS expanded significantly: there are 6,700 more doctors, more than 17,100 additional nurses and more than 9,600 additional scientific, therapeutic and technical staff. Like other noble Lords, I mourn the absence of our late noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. How he would have enjoyed today's debate; he would have enjoined us to recognise the contribution of nurses.
	Between September 1999 and September 2000 alone we saw 6,300 more nurses. Over 7,500 qualified nurses have already returned to the NHS since February 1999 and a further 2,000 are preparing to join them. Applications for nurse training have increased by 86 per cent over the past two years. UKCC figures published yesterday show a 13.2 per cent increase in the number of new registrations for newly-qualified nurses and midwives.
	That is substantial progress in which we should rejoice. But we face a shortfall. That is where international recruitment comes into play. But I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is a two-way process. Welcoming staff from abroad surely enables the transfer of experience and the sharing of ideas which can be extremely beneficial both to the patients in this country and to those in the other countries concerned. I stress, as I have stressed before in your Lordships' House, that guidance issued to the service ensures that international recruitment is carried out effectively and appropriately, and only in relation to those countries where there exists a surplus of nursing staff.
	My noble friend Lord Haskel also pointed to the announcement we made today in relation to the expansion in maternity services and our intention to see an extra 500 midwives working in the NHS over the next five years. That too is extremely important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, referred to waiting times and waiting lists. It has been a substantial achievement to reduce the number of people on waiting lists. We made it abundantly clear that clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as out-patients or admitted as in-patients.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, cast some doubt on the role of modern matrons. I doubt whether that will be shared by many Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out the problems that arose in the NHS when ward sisters particularly were disempowered by having responsibilities taken away from them. It is little surprise that in looking at the experience of patients in our hospitals, many complaints arise from issues in the wards relating to cleaning and catering--issues which once upon a time would have come under the firm control of the ward sister. We are turning that around. The whole role of modern matrons is to give responsibility back to senior nurses. I am convinced that patient experience will be enhanced as a result.
	Many noble Lords--the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, and my noble friend Lord Haskel in particular--talked about the pressures under which doctors work and the changing relationship between doctors and members of the public. There can be no doubt that patients are more informed and more demanding. In addition, the work of doctors has come under ever greater scrutiny. And patients expect to know more; they expect to consent to what is happening to them. That in itself presents new challenges to the medical profession.
	But those of us who know people working in other professions would say that those pressures are not only relevant to the medical profession; many other professions have to face up to new ways of working. We in the NHS of course have to provide support to enable the profession to face up to those pressures and challenges. One thing is for sure, they will not go away.
	A number of contributions suggested that doctors in particular are feeling "under the cosh" at the moment, and of course we must address those issues. But there are indications that the latest figures show that there has been a fall in the proportion of hospital medical staff and GPs taking voluntary early retirement. I say also to my noble friend Lord Turnberg that we wish to encourage people to continue working for the NHS on a part-time basis. I am happy to pick up any specific instances of concern and examine them. It is clearly in the interests of the health service to encourage people who wish to reduce their commitment, but nevertheless continue to work in the NHS, to be enabled to do so. That is part of the NHS becoming a better employer.
	We have listened to staff; we are tackling their concerns. We are investing heavily in more training places. We are looking at how to encourage more flexible and family-friendly working practices--more childcare, more flexible retirement policies. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that we have appointed a senior official to help us provide more accommodation for nurses, particularly in central London, because I well recognise the problems that he raised.
	Being a good employer applies to primary care and GPs as much as to any other member of staff. GPs work hard and we know that they are under pressure. That is why we set out in the NHS Plan our intent to recruit at least 2,000 extra GPs by 2004. We have laid the foundations for that in increasing the number of trainee places. We set out a number of measures to encourage trained GPs to return to practice, particularly women following career breaks, and GPs who wait until they are 65 to retire are being offered £10,000 golden goodbye awards.
	Of course we are also committed to cutting bureaucracy and to freeing up appointment times to the equivalent of nearly 1,000 GPs. Indeed, as Dr John Oldham pointed out,
	"A lot of very simple things can add up to making a significant difference. It's all about working smarter, not harder".
	Perhaps Dr Oldham goes a little too far. But he makes the point powerfully that it is not just about making more resources available; it is about making the best use of them. So I was disappointed yesterday. I noticed that the action taken by a small number of GPs was not supported by the BMA or by any significant doctors' organisation. We want to agree a new contract for GPs. But that is surely best delivered through discussion and negotiation and not through protest action which can only impact upon the experience of patients.
	Most people recognise that the growth in resources is a substantial change. But it is not just a question of resources; it is a question of improving the way we work. The NHS Plan revolves very much around breaking down some of the boundaries and barriers that exist at the moment in order to produce an integrated approach to care across so many of the organisational boundaries that have always existed in the health and social care local community.
	Staff must be in the driving seat of change. Doctors, nurses and scientists must use their know-how; make their innovations felt; redesign their services. I fully accept the comments made by many noble Lords that where staff are put firmly in control of what they do is where we will see the innovation that we require.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the dental strategy. We are committed to NHS dentistry, and that is why we are developing dental access centres. It is why the Prime Minister made the pledge about access to NHS dentistry and it is why we are making it abundantly clear to health authorities that they need to re-engage with the dental profession. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, an enthusiasm for fluoridation. But we must wait for the results of the MRC review. The noble Baroness knows where my heart lies on that question.
	Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made an important point in relation to the pharmacy programme. I believe that pharmacies can contribute much more, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also stated, and that is why we are encouraging people to go to community pharmacies for advice where that is appropriate.
	I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about her experience when she unfortunately had to use the NHS some time ago. I agree with the points regarding consistency of approach. That is what we are trying to do. That is what national frameworks and specialised commissioning are about.
	Information technology in NHS hospitals is important. For many years the NHS has had a poor record of introducing IT. One of the key lessons from the NHS Plan discussions with staff is the need for us to get IT right. That is why we are investing £1 billion in modernising NHS information systems over the lifetime of our information strategy, 1998-2005.
	I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, concerning Defence Medical Services. I am responsible in the department for liaison with the MoD on those matters. I am happy to write to him with more details. However, perhaps he will take it from me that I am committed to ensuring that the partnership works effectively. I believe that we can make that partnership work.
	I was interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning public health. That is an important matter which perhaps did not get sufficient airing in our debate today. I shall follow up with details of the screening pilots about which she asked. It is important that screening is done in the right way. That is why we have the National Screening Committee and take advice from it. There is sometimes an assumption that all screening is good. However, some screening is not particularly effective and can sometimes cause harm. Therefore, we must get it right.
	I shall pass up the challenge to debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the question of community health councils. We have debated that in your Lordships' House in the past few weeks and may well do so again next week.
	Perhaps I may conclude with the issue of centralisation and decentralisation, which ran as a thread through contributions of all noble Lords today. The point about the NHS is that it is a national service. I do not believe that the public will tolerate inconsistency in either the quality or the range of services which are available in the NHS throughout the country. That is why Ministers are accountable to Parliament for its performance. It is inevitable that we will have national standards and national targets. However, we accept that we have to limit those and leave room for staff to grow and lead at local level. In essence, that is what the Secretary of State announced in his launch of the Modernisation Agency only last week.
	Looking back over my 25 years of working in the National Health Service, I have never been more confident about its future than I am today. The NHS has always had the right ethos, dedicated staff and public support. We are building on that with more resources, more capacity, more staff and a plan which, for the first time in any reorganisation in living memory, has the support of all people working in the NHS. Putting that together, I believe that the NHS is in good shape. It is ready to take on the challenge of change, to innovate, and to put patients first. Surely that walks step by step with high morale among the staff. There is no better challenge for a great public service. I am confident that it is one which will be fulfilled.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have been passed a note which says that I have two minutes in which to wind up. Therefore, I shall make only one or two final remarks.
	We are all aware of the great love and respect there is for the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded us of that. That is why we care about the state of morale in the NHS. There is widespread agreement around the House that morale is in a poor state. Several noble Lords have suggested remedies. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through the more interesting of those.
	The purpose of this debate was not to solve problems. I am grateful for the Government's response. Indeed, I am glad that the Minister is confident about the future. We on these Benches would be happier if he stopped looking in the rear-view mirror, in which he is getting a distorted view of the past, and concentrated on looking forward.
	The Minister referred to a number of systems and structures and constantly brought us back to the NHS Plan. The issue is whether the NHS Plan will be anything like enough to deal with the real crisis of confidence we have debated today. However, I shall take up no more of your Lordships' time. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Wembley National Stadium Project

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to a Private Notice Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"The Football Association's announcement yesterday that it could not deliver its plans for Wembley was very disappointing news. It was all the more so given the repeated assurances given to Sport England and the Government over the whole of last year by the Wembley project team that everything was on track. The Government have consistently supported the concept of a national stadium and this has been on the basis of continued assurances from football that the project would be delivered.
	"It was in 1996 that the then GB Sports Council decided that Wembley should be the location for a national stadium. From 1998 onwards, the project has been one led by the Football Association via a wholly owned subsidiary, Wembley National Stadium Ltd.
	"From that point it was the Football Association and its subsidiary that drove the project forward in terms of negotiation with Wembley plc over the acquisition of the land, agreement with Sport England over the terms of the lottery funding for that acquisition, the design issues and, most importantly, securing the necessary financing to make the project viable.
	"Wembley National Stadium under its chairman, Ken Bates, consistently assured everyone that all was well with the project. This has proved not to be the case. The first occasion on which this was demonstrated was in the autumn of 1999, when it became clear that the needs of athletics could not sensibly be met by the WNSL scheme.
	"That was a result of the costs of creating and dismantling the concrete platform for athletics; the costs of acquiring the necessary land for the required warm-up track, and the fact that there would be no lasting legacy for athletics at the national stadium.
	"I therefore decided that athletics should be removed from Wembley and subsequently the Lee Valley athletics stadium has been chosen by UK Athletics as the national centre for athletics and the venue for the 2005 Athletics Championships. That decision has been vindicated by subsequent events; and work is now well advanced on the designs for the Enfield stadium.
	"The second occasion on which WNSL's assurances that all was well with the project proved to be misplaced was in November last year when the loan syndication to finance the whole project failed. The principal reason the banks were reluctant to provide finance was that they had doubts about the WNSL business case, and in particular the ambitious projections of hospitality and premium seat income. Let us not forget that this was a project that had escalated in estimated cost from a little over £300 million to a total of £650 million.
	"The banks were also concerned that the FA stood to gain from the project but carried little or no risk. At that point some much needed realism was injected into WNSL and the Football Association's thinking on the project.
	"Following the failure of loan syndication, the FA replaced Ken Bates with Sir Rodney Walker as chairman of WNSL and took a much closer interest in their project. The FA made clear its intention to address the banks' concerns that the FA itself was not taking its share of risk in the project. Regrettably, Government learned last week that the Football Association did not feel it could do this without a further significant injection of funds. The FA initially requested up to £300 million from government. I am afraid this is simply not on, especially when the current costly design of the new Wembley is on the scale it is due to the needs of the commercial interests in the project.
	"In the light of the FA's announcement yesterday, the Government will review all the options for a national stadium. To assist in that process we have asked the existing ministerial group looking at the cross-governmental issues around the Commonwealth Games to look at alternative solutions. I should stress at this stage that no options are ruled out. Therefore it may well be that a solution can be found to carry forward a new-build--or a refurbishment--solution at Wembley. Other alternatives may be considered. We want to play our part, as government, in securing a good, affordable and sustainable national stadium for England. That is what we will now do".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place by his right honourable friend. It is indeed dismal news today. It seems that instead of gaining a national stadium we are facing national disgrace.
	I am disappointed with the Statement. The Government have sought to heap the blame totally on to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited without taking any responsibility for their own actions. Does the Minister recall how effusive the Secretary of State used to be about the selfsame Wembley plans?
	I might remind him that in a press release on 29th July 1999, the Secretary of State said:
	"Trying to match a stadium as legendary as the current Wembley was a daunting challenge but Norman Foster and his team have come up with a stunning design. Wembley will be the centre-piece of our campaign to attract the world's premier sporting events to this country. It will be a magnificent venue for athletics as well as football".
	Despite saying that, he later admitted that he had doubts about the plans all along. When being questioned by the Select Committee in another place, the Secretary of State said:
	"I was unhappy about the proposals. It was only as we tested the detail in the following weeks that the difficulties became clear".
	Today the Government say that they had repeated assurances from the Wembley project team that all was well. Did they take those assurances at face value without further detailed consideration? What monitoring have the Government carried out of the Wembley proposals since 1999 when, according to their own statement, they saw that there were faults in the plan? Throughout there have been many stories in the press about the problems, but I believe that we have the right to expect that the Government have kept themselves properly informed.
	The Minister referred to action taken by the Secretary of State when he questioned and scrapped the plans for a combined football and athletics stadium. Surely, that action dealt a massive blow to confidence in the project. Is that not the reason why potential City backers have decided not to put money into the scheme?
	Today the Minister referred to the replacement of Ken Bates by Sir Rodney Walker as chairman of WSNL. Does he recall the statement by the Secretary of State in another place as recently as 26th March this year that:
	"I have confidence that Sir Rodney and his team will deliver the goods"?--[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/01; col. 673.]
	Where is that confidence now?
	Can the plans be adapted for a cheaper version of a national stadium still at Wembley? The Minister properly referred to the escalating costs. This morning on television the Secretary of State in an interview fuelled speculation that Wembley may be abandoned as the site for the national football stadium. The NEC site outside Birmingham has been mentioned as a possible alternative. Is that indeed on the Government's agenda?
	The whole House will want to see the Wembley project back on track. But if it cannot be revived, what will happen to the £120 million of National Lottery money given to the FA for the purpose of purchasing the Wembley site? Will it be repaid and, if so, at what stage?
	The Secretary of State's handling of the Wembley project has been dismal. The Prime Minister decided yesterday to put the Home Secretary at the head of an existing committee which we are told will suddenly change its job. However, his decision to do that is the clearest sign yet that he has lost any confidence he had in his Secretary of State. Why else really would the Home Office be asked to clear up the problem of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
	Finally, the vital question of interest to everyone in this country, whether or not we are sports people--it is of interest to everyone around the world--is: when will the report by the Home Office group be made available? All of us will be waiting to see what happens next.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for repeating the Statement today. Its content and import are, as the noble Baroness said, dismaying to say the least. They are dismaying not only to Members of this House but to the public at large because the media have already taken up the topic on radio and television. As one would expect, a great deal of criticism is already flying about regarding personalities. That is not necessarily very helpful.
	Anyone who like me was lucky enough to go in 1966 to Wembley to see England beat Germany in the final of that year's World Cup will regard the event as a moment in their lives which they will never forget. Many noble Lords will have been to Wembley on other occasions, not necessarily relating to sport. It is in that respect that the whole project has gone wrong because a national stadium is not only about football and sport; it is about national prestige.
	The Stade de France, which was backed with utter commitment in France, not only holds great national sporting events but is a theatre for international artists. It has been an enormous success. It was hoped that the excellent design of the new Wembley Stadium would achieve the same success. However, the problem is that again the Government wanted to be involved in what they saw as a large national project but they were not prepared to put in money or commitment.
	It was a mistake that the Government should have gone to the Football Association. I do not believe that the association can be blamed because the project was beyond the scale of what they were able to deliver. The costs have now risen to £660 million, with running costs of £50 million per annum. The business plan which the FA put forward to the banks on the basis of income against investment did not meet the banks' criteria. The FA should never have been put in this position.
	Now the Government are able to say that they have been let down by the Football Association--or, to be more precise, Wembley National Stadium Limited. I do not want to blame personalities--I shall leave that to the media--but we in this country have not taken seriously and thought through what should have been a major enterprise in this country to support our national prestige.
	Football is very important, but a national stadium is extremely important. To some developing countries it is more than an airport and is something which they point to and wave their flags for. It provides enormous stimulus not only to a country's reputation abroad but to its morale at home. That was shown in France with its Stade de France. France has been lucky enough to have an excellent national football team and has excelled in other sports and we could do the same.
	In my view, the project began to look shaky when it was decided that the new stadium could no longer accommodate an athletics track. There were good commercial reasons for that; the costs of rebuilding the foundations and the cost of acquiring the necessary land for warming up, as described in the Statement, were outside the possibility of the financial plans.
	I am not sure what is meant by the statement that there is no lasting legacy for athletics at the stadium. If I understand that modern language correctly, it means that athletics beyond 2005 will take place at the new stadium. In the Statement, the Government brightly state that everything in regard to the new athletics stadium is going extremely well and it will be a huge success. But how much greater success we would have had had we made a commitment to Wembley Stadium, done the sums properly and not thought in a parochial way merely about football or sport. We should have seen the whole potential of the project and the international prestige that we would have gained and made a commitment financially and philosophically to a project which would have held us in good stead in this country for many years to come. As it is, the project is a mess. We have had messes before, for example further down the river, and I hope that this will not be the same. We also have a situation similar to the one down the river, because the stadium at Wembley is now almost derelict and unkempt, although I understand that several hundred people make sure that it does not deteriorate to the extent that it is completely unusable or unsaleable. There is a cost to that while all of these things take place.
	Many people must be dismayed--I am sure that the media will make something of it--that yet another government task force is to look at it and make recommendations. I do not blame Chris Smith. I have been longing for the opportunity to say that in this country it is nonsense to have a department of state which deals with culture, media, sport and tourism. To blame Mr Smith, who has been very successful in some areas but not in others, for this matter is to forget that it is hard enough for someone on these Benches in this House to be expected to cover these four topics. I enjoy it, but the remit covers a wide area.
	I believe that in a modern country there should be one department which deals with culture and another department to deal with sport. Sport is very important and it is not adequate to deal with it in this way. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would deal with the remit more than adequately. He is one of the great performers at the Dispatch Box who can deal with anything, even if he has seven or eight matters to cover at the same time. However, I believe that the burden on Mr Smith is intolerable. If I was talking to a betting man, I would hazard the guess that in the near future there will be a reshuffling of these responsibilities, with the possibility of a new department. I hope that that happens. Sport requires a department of state to handle it. If we had had such a department we would not be in this muddle.
	A national stadium is not about football but national status and how we stand in the world and relate to other countries, not only through sport. We act as hosts for international stars. For heaven's sake, the Pope has been at Wembley; and Madonna has also appeared there, if that is not an unhappy conjunction. As in other countries, various international music stars have appeared at Wembley.
	If the Government get to work now and form a body which can produce a sensible business plan to go ahead with Wembley, I am absolutely sure that it will be a success, assuming it is run by the right people. I have the greatest possible admiration for Birmingham, which has stepped in with great energy, as I would if I were involved in anything in that city. To have a stadium in Birmingham is an excellent idea, but it should not be the national stadium. The national stadium deserves to be here in London; this is where we and the world expect it to be. Football teams used to chant "We're on our way to Wembley". Wembley has a history and culture that cannot be ignored.
	It is a sad day when we have a derelict site at Wembley with the prospect of a hiatus and, at best, if the Government get their act together, the provision of a national stadium to compete with the best stadia in the world in the next five or six years. The Statement is necessarily low key, but I believe that it is a very sad day.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in many ways I share the emotional feelings of both noble Lords for Wembley. I first went to that stadium to attend the Olympic Games in 1948. Afterwards, I was even known to go from school to speedway racing at that stadium, although that is perhaps not so politically correct given what has happened to Wembley more recently. We must maintain a sense of realism about this matter and address the issues as they are rather than with wishful thinking.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested that there was some conflict in our support as expressed in 1999 for Lord Foster's stunning design of Wembley Stadium. We did support what is still a stunning design, but we never indicated that we would support it with a blank cheque of taxpayers', or even lottery players', money. I do not believe that the Conservative Party seriously suggests that we should do that now. I notice that both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and Mr Ainsworth in another place held back from such a suggestion.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the Government believed in the assurances given by the Football Association and whether we had monitored the Wembley proposals. The test of the Wembley proposals and their financing have come to the fore very much in recent months with the failure of the loan syndication issue. Right up until yesterday J P Morgan, one of those institutions that had been approached for financing, indicated that it would still be willing to participate in the financing of Wembley Stadium if the Football Association took some share of the risk. The FA indicated to government some weeks ago that it would be so willing. The news now is that it has changed its mind and it is not willing to take a share of the risk. In those circumstances, I do not believe it can be said that the Government have been in any way irresponsible in its consideration of these issues.
	The noble Baroness also appeared to suggest, although I am not entirely clear that she really meant it, that somehow the removal of athletics from the stadium was a contributory cause of financial failure. I am not quite clear whether the Conservative Party supports the athletics proposals. Those proposals consisted of an £18 million concrete platform which would take six months to assemble and dismantle on each occasion. Contrary to the removal of athletics having complicated the financial problems, the truth is that it has simplified it and enabled us to look for a better solution for athletics somewhere else for the 2005 games. I believe that, on reflection, all sides of the House would agree that that was the right thing to do.
	The noble Baroness suggested that somehow the Government had changed their attitude to Sir Rodney Walker. We are not responsible for the chairmanship of Wembley National Stadium Limited. However, when it was suggested that Sir Rodney, as chairman of the UK Sports Council, should also be chairman of that company, we expressed our continued confidence in him; and we still hold that view. But it is a matter for the company, not the Government.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government were giving serious consideration to other sites as well as Wembley. Yes, certainly we are. That includes consideration of sites in Birmingham, Coventry or other places. The advantage of Wembley is that Wembley National Stadium Limited owns the site. We have put £120 million into the acquisition of the site and design costs. The noble Baroness asked me what had happened to that sum. That money is returnable if no new stadium is built at Wembley. If, for example, there was simply a refurbishment of the stadium the £120 million would no longer be available and no doubt there would have to be some negotiations on that point. However, the money is for that purpose and is in principle returnable.
	The noble Baroness asked about the Cabinet committee. The ministerial group to which the Statement refers is not a new group but already exists under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary, and it is entirely rational that it should take on this additional responsibility. That shows no disrespect for, or lack of confidence in, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It will report as soon as possible. It has been asked to report quickly, but it must consider the whole range of issues described in the Statement.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, drew a contrast between the support of the French Government for the Stade de France and our support for a national stadium in this country. I remind him that the French Government's support for the Stade de France is approximately £125 million, which is comparable with our support from the lottery to Wembley and the cost of the entire Millennium Stadium in Cardiff.
	I do not want to comment in more detail on the relationship between the Football Association and the banks, except to repeat my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that, if anything, the removal of athletics from the stadium made its financial planning considerably simpler and more hopeful. It is unfortunate that it has not occurred. But the failure of Wembley Stadium cannot be assigned to the governmental failures ascribed by noble Lords opposite.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an unpaid interest as a director of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium, nominated by Cardiff County Council to protect its public interest responsibility as special shareholder and as guardian of the Millennium Commission's grant of £46 million for the stadium.
	Today's sad Statement repeated by my noble friend will not come as a surprise to many of us who have followed this issue over the past few months. As long ago as December 1999 we were aware that something was amiss with Wembley's costings. The managing director of the stadium company told the All-Party Sports Group that the cost per seat at the new Wembley Stadium would be roughly the same as Cardiff. However, the correct figures are £1,650 per seat for Cardiff and £7,200 for Wembley. That makes Wembley well over four times more expensive than Cardiff.
	Is my noble friend aware that there will be general understanding why the FA's request for the additional £300 million of public money could not be granted, particularly given the FA's unwillingness to accept a share of the risk? Can the Minister give an assurance that when all the options are looked at they will include not just Birmingham and Manchester--both those places have strong support--but the possibility of refurbishing the existing Wembley on a more modest scale or the option of having no national stadium and following, let us say, the Italian example and moving major matches and events from one ground to another around the country? There are enormous sums of money at stake. It is possible that the games concerned, not just football, could benefit substantially if that money was not sunk into a national stadium.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have my friend's support and description of the financial situation of the Government and, above all, the Football Association. Yes, I can confirm that the reason why matters have gone wrong with Wembley is, first, that the Football Association has not been willing to take any share of the risk, although it previously indicated that it would; and, secondly, there has been this vast increase in the costs, and, as my noble friend said, in the cost per seat. A significant part of that increase is new provision for commercial or semi-commercial uses. It is exactly for that reason that it would not be appropriate for taxpayers' money to be put into the Football Association's proposals for Wembley.
	My noble friend asked me whether we are genuinely going to consider other options. The answer certainly is yes. Those options include refurbishment at Wembley. They also include the Italian possibility of moving major events around the country. That is what has happened since Wembley closed. The experience is--even the Football Association would agree--that it has worked rather well. Moving to Anfield and to other grounds has not only been successful and popular but has probably saved the Football Association a great deal of money. So, indeed, we shall also be looking into that option.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, is it not the case that Wembley, even within the context of London, is a bad location for a major sporting centre because of its poor communications and transport links? While it has a huge amount of history and nostalgia, as detailed by my noble friend on the Front Bench, its future--if it has a future in football or sport--should perhaps be as a museum and a major national training and coaching centre.
	There is no reason why a national stadium has to be in London. That is simply the normal arrogance of people who think that London is the only really important place. Birmingham in the West Midlands has a very good case. That does not alter the case that greenfield sites or fresh sites in areas of good communications in the north of England might be considered, particularly as association football, and especially the professional game, have their historic roots in Lancashire and Yorkshire, which remain the powerhouse of the game in this country, as we have seen tonight in the Leeds United game. May I therefore urge the Government to think Wigan or perhaps Warrington, Wakefield, Crewe or even Doncaster, but above all to think River Trent, north thereof?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that the planned use for a national stadium was always going to be football and rugby league. Your Lordships can draw their own regional conclusions from that.
	What Wembley has going for it is very simple: we paid £120 million for the site and for the design work. It starts ahead on those grounds. But it does not start ahead on the grounds of any presumption on the part of government that a national stadium, if we are going to have one, has to be in Wembley or London. Our minds are genuinely open on that point. We think north of the River Trent as well as south of it.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I declare an interest as a millennium commissioner. The right honourable Secretary of State, Chris Smith, is chairman of that commission. This is not one of his finest hours, although I have a great deal of respect for him as chairman of that commission.
	I have a number of points, some of which have already been made. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, well made the point that in a short space of time the New Millennium Stadium in Wales was successfully built by a joint group led by the Welsh Rugby Football Union, the banks, the devolved assembly in Cardiff, the local authority and the Millennium Commission, but without interference from central government.
	Is the Minister aware that the same situation is true of the Hamden Park of Dreams? That was also a major project and cost about the same as the Millennium Stadium in Wales. Each stadium cost in the region of £120 million. In today's context I may say "only £120 million". They are both capable of multi-use, but not of staging athletics. Is the Minister aware of how long the argument has been going on in sport and with those promoting sport about whether one can successfully run an international athletics circuit within a football stadium? I first had that conversation with Jimmy Hill probably 20 years ago. In those days it was absolutely clear, and Jimmy was clear, that one could not do both, even in a 9,000-seater stadium, let alone in a 70,000-seater.
	I know the Minister will not agree with me, but I believe that there has been a considerable amount of muddled thinking. I am concerned, having sat and watched the mismanagement of the finances of the NMEC by the government department. I feel that there has been mismanagement of the project by government departments in this country not paying enough attention to the detail of business plans.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there are valuable lessons to be learnt, particularly from Cardiff, but also from Hamden Park. Those lessons are very much before the ministerial group which is now considering the matter.
	With regard to the problem of athletics in a football stadium, Chris Smith, in his Statement which I have repeated, made that clear. There are problems of size and sight lines and problems, in particular in the original proposals for Wembley, with this concrete platform. That is very expensive and difficult to move. In contrast to some of the responses to the Statement, I adhere to the view, and the Government adhere to the view, that, by taking out athletics from the Wembley project, we have both simplified it and made the financial prospects better. Some way has to be found of making use of that lesson. I am glad to know from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that it has been known for a considerable period of time. What we have here is an example of the pursuit of the best at the expense of the good. That is often a dangerous thing to do.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the Statement omits one important point. The problem is not just the geographical location of Wembley but the infrastructure cost. Can my noble friend say what sum would be involved in improving the infrastructure? I join other noble Lords in asking for consideration to be given to projects other than Wembley. I can tell my noble friend that we are applying for a new stadium at Warrington. We could hold up the plans and make them even grander if we thought that the national stadium was coming up there.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not risk my life by saying anything antagonistic towards Warrington or indeed Wigan. I confirm what I have already said. Options north of the Trent, including Warrington and Wigan, will not be neglected. My noble friend asked about the infrastructure at Wembley. The issue is complicated. Wembley National Stadium Limited bought land from Wembley plc but it did not buy all the land. In particular, it did not buy enough land to have both adequate car-parking and the kind of warm-up track that would have been necessary for athletics there. There are all kinds of restrictions on the site--it is owned by Wembley National Stadium Limited--which create difficulties. Those considerations will have to be taken into account when we are seeking a successful conclusion to this problem.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, as a rugby fan, and a Welsh rugby fan at that, I intervene to make a suggestion. One of the problems of all national stadiums--it will eventually be a problem at Cardiff--whether used for one sport or two sports, is that they have a very limited income. Not only has the initial cost to be borne in mind but also how to generate income. If only international matches are held at a national stadium, the income is limited. One could, on the other hand, have a rotating system for football internationals. There are so many fine stadiums available in the country which have large attendances for home matches anyway and can generate a large income. An international match would add to that income and add to the geographical spread for so many soccer fans. Should not the idea of a rotating system between the top clubs in the country attract a good deal of attention?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are all valid and interesting points. I certainly take the noble Lord's point that to have restricted, occasional use of an expensive building is a poor use of financial resources. One of the possibilities that cannot be ruled out is whether one of the London football clubs might wish to relocate to Wembley. That, again, will be taken into consideration.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the position with regard to the £250 million that has already been spent? If I understand him correctly, if Wembley is not redeveloped, that money will be repaid to the Government. Is my understanding of the position correct?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure is not £250 million; it is £120 million; and it is not from the Government; it is from the lottery. That commitment of £120 million is legal only if a new stadium is built at Wembley. If nothing is done at Wembley, the money has to be repaid; if there is only refurbishment at Wembley, the money has to be repaid. The money has not of course been spent; but it would not be paid out.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to looking at all alternatives. Has he looked at the alternative of perhaps converting the Dome into a national stadium? After all, that might solve two problems at the same time.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it slopes the wrong way, I should have thought.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not think that criticism can be levelled at the Government for the way that they have handled this difficult situation. It is unfair to blame the Secretary of State, who has tried his best. My criticism of the Government is that they are involved in media, culture and sport at all. It would be much better if they left those alone. People are appalled at the escalation of the cost of this project from £300 million to £700 million--six times the cost of the Cardiff stadium. People will want reassurance--I certainly want reassurance--that no further public money will go into this project. People will be appalled when they see the money that is thrown about in football generally, in salaries of £3 million a year paid to players and £19 million transfer fees. Football is well able to finance the stadium itself and through private borrowing. I sincerely hope that my noble friend can give us an absolute assurance that no further public money will be invested in this or any other such project.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall gladly convey to Chris Smith my noble friend's expression of confidence in him. I shall consider whether I want to convey to him my noble friend's more fundamentalist view that the Government should not be involved in culture, media or sport. That is rather more radical. I do not say that in a critical way. My noble friend is a radical. But it is a rather more radical view which I do not think will find much support in the House. My noble friend asks for an assurance that no more public money will be spent. The position is that £120 million of lottery money has been spent. It has been spent in acquiring the site. Of that £120 million, £14 million is design costs. I hope I have made it entirely clear that if there is no new stadium at Wembley the Football Association will have to repay that money; and it will have to repay that money from its own resources. The whole impact of the Statement is that no more public money is available for this purpose.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, what contribution did the Government expect from the Football Association? What asset base does it have to enable it to contribute to the project? Did the Government have a ballpark figure in mind?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that has not been a matter between the Football Association and the Government. It has been a matter between the Football Association and the banks. As I understand the position, the banks--to me entirely reasonably--said, "Here is the Football Association. It is a rather rich body. It is a commercial body and not a purely charitable body. But it does not appear to be willing to take any of the risks in this project, from which it would be taking all the benefits in future". The banks did not think that that was a very good idea. I do not either; but it is a matter for the banks and for the Football Association.

Anglo-American Relations

Lord Howell of Guildford: rose to call attention to developments in relations between the United Kingdom and the United States; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will regard it as timely and appropriate that we should be discussing today the theme of US-UK relations. It is certainly the case that the new Bush administration has just completed its first 100 days. Whatever one feels about some of the decisions and views that have emerged from Washington, no one can say that those 100 days have been dull. On the contrary, they have been enlivened by some extremely intense debate on some of the new policy positions being taken up by the Bush team.
	On this side of the Atlantic, all around Europe, a good deal of shrill invective has been vented about Mr Bush and his team. They have been branded as "isolationists" and "cowboys". Another phrase used was that they are the "toxic Texans". A number of other cries of dismay have come from those whose preconceptions and presumptions about the ways in which global policy should be formed were being rudely interrupted.
	On the Left and centre Left, I heard expressions of dismay that here was a candidate, a governor, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative", who has turned out to be a conservative. I for one do not find it difficult to unite those two concepts. Experience proves that any administration or government who opt for low taxes and tax reduction end up helping the poor and those most in need of care rather more effectively than governments who are committed to high taxation, in particular when those high taxes are borne by the poorest people. I believe that there might be a lesson in that for our own Government. Indeed, that has been confirmed by the most recent figures published by the Office for National Statistics. They show that the gap between rich and poor is widening as more taxes are piled on.
	As to the charge of isolationism, I believe that to be a nonsense based on no facts or groundwork. The new Bush team is highly internationalist. Its members are realists. Their tone and approach is different from their predecessors in the Clinton White House administration. Furthermore, they are very much moved and informed by concerns about energy matters. One would expect that, given the background of some of them, and given the reality of the fact that America is moving into what has been described--with perhaps a little hyperbole--as an energy crisis. If it is not a crisis, certainly America's reliance on imported oil is now heavy. I said only the other day from this Dispatch Box that that reliance is now twice what it was 20 years ago when I had some responsibility for energy matters. Imports have risen to above 60 per cent. This exposes America to the intense need to conserve its own appetites, to ensure that its supplies are secure and reliable, and to develop its domestic supplies. That may be not unrelated to the decision that the administration seem to have taken on the Kyoto Protocol, which I shall address in more detail later.
	In my speech to open the debate, I shall concentrate on four areas of US/UK relations as well as US/EU relations, since on this side of the Atlantic we operate in the EU context. These are first, security issues; secondly, attitudes in Washington to the European Union integration process and the role of the UK in Europe--which I believe to be changing; thirdly, the whole question of economics which, given the American slowdown, is rather crucial to us all; and, fourthly, environmental issues and the Kyoto Protocol decision.
	I shall turn first to security matters and deal with the European security strategic defence project. I hope that it will not be denied that there is no doubt at all that the United States administration now in office in Washington dislike and are confused by plans for the new so-called Rapid Reaction Force. I believe that it has every right to be confused because it has received a number of conflicting messages. Furthermore, the administration must be puzzled by the change in mood from only a couple of years ago.
	Recently, I was reading the interesting book written by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, entitled Separate Ways: the Heart of Britain, in which the noble Lord reminds us of exactly what was said by the Prime Minister only two summers ago about defence in Europe. The Prime Minister came to the House of Commons and stated that the goals of defence:
	"will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the WEU or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted its unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for--and won--the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence".
	He went on to say that,
	"the UK saw its future defence not in the European Union but in NATO".
	As I said, that was the thinking two summers ago, but it has gone now. We seem to have embarked on a completely new and not very clear tack. It is one that is constantly being confused by authoritative pronouncements which appear to contradict those of Her Majesty's Government.
	General Kelche, the Chief of the Defence Staff in France, recently said to the Select Committee in another place,
	"why should we have to go through NATO to select an option?".
	We have heard General Hagglund, the new chair of the EU Military Committee comprising 130 planning staff, state that:
	"We are not talking about a subsidiary of NATO. This is an independent body".
	Given messages of that kind, it is not surprising that Washington fears that there is a danger that NATO will be undermined. I think that its representatives are right to hold those fears. If the spirit of the Nice Treaty prevails--in its codicils it specifically considers separate planning arrangements, both pre-decision planning and operational planning, which are two separate phases--this will be the biggest breach between the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as between Europe and the United States, in 50 years. That is what the Americans now most fear. We should not go into this except with clear minds as regards what is intended and what is being planned. We should not rely on ambiguity to allow us to finesse and slip through the situation.
	The second issue of security which I should like to discuss is that of missile defence, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the view set out only last night by the President of the United States to the National Defence University. Personally, I am puzzled by the reluctance of many people in Europe to support this project and the idea of a new umbrella combined, as the President pointed out in his speech, with a substantial reduction in existing missile arsenals. The new umbrella would respond to the new contexts--technological and political--in which nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are now being deployed around the globe.
	Of course Russia and China will say immediately that they do not like this. Russia will do that because it is playing for a negotiating position and because it is the possessor of the second largest arsenal of weapons. Furthermore, the Russians are good chess players. China will voice concerns for the even more obvious reasons that it is in the business of missile production and export, along with arms production and export on a massive scale. Anything which gets in the way of those activities will be objected to. We were reminded of that this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he spoke to the BBC. He said that one should not be at all surprised that China has spoken out against this move into the new world--one into which I believe that we have to move.
	As regards the fondness generally expressed in the EU--and demonstrated in some parts of our own body politic here in London--for mutual assured deterrence (the old order) I find it curious that so many who were once opposed to it now wish to hang on to it. Even more curiously, they do not understand that new technology has completely redistributed the patterns of power which govern the use and projection of nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles and missiles carrying other terrifying warheads. It is my view that, in this new context, the British Government should be completely forthright in pledging the necessary support required by the United States. We should ensure that we allow the adaptation and upgrading of Fylingdales, which will be necessary for the forward sensors for the project to develop in the way now outlined by President Bush. I do not understand--perhaps I do understand, but I deplore--the reluctance to speak out boldly on this matter, but rather to take cover behind the argument that a precise proposal has not been made and so forth. The Americans need a firm pledge of support and we should provide it.
	Doubts expressed by Washington about what the Europeans are up to seem to extend to the entire European integration process. The Americans have long admired and encouraged the idea of the European Union as a pillar, an Atlantic partner. Kennedy produced the idea of an Atlantic partnership some 40 years ago. However, that is one thing. If this is going to turn Europe into a rival superpower with its own competitive ambitions, I think that that is quite something different. I am not surprised that a good many Americans are having second thoughts about the whole undertaking.
	I do not know what they make of what I regard as Chancellor Schroder's proposed highly undemocratic reforms for European governance, but I am sure that they view with contempt certain European Union posturing on foreign policy, of which this latest attempt to upstage the Americans over North Korea is, I think, a sad and rather pathetic example.
	The Americans want, as should the British, co-operation in Europe, not dangerous rivalry. They do not want dangerous rivalry over whether the euro will be a rival currency to the dollar; over whether protectionism will be a rival to American trade policy; over whether a defence policy will rival American hegemony. This is not the language of partnership; it is the language of competition and rivalry. We should step well clear of such language and achieve a secure and good policy in relation to the United States.
	As to the economy, there has been a sharp US slow-down. It is ludicrous to suggest, as some people have, that we will be immune from the slow-down. Forecasters say that they are surprised. All that tells me is that they are wrong again; that they are looking at the wrong indicators. In one area I agree with the European Central Bank and the much criticised Mr Duisenberg. The US theory that jiggling with interest rates--or fiddling with abstracts, as the US Treasury Secretary calls it--can offset recession and slow down or alter the business cycle is deeply misplaced. Central banks are much more marginal than their pretensions suggest, and the ECB is quite right to stick to its lathe and to realise that it does not have the power to switch Europe into a recovery mode merely by altering short-term interest rates.
	As to Kyoto and the treaty on greenhouse gases, the American reaction should not be a surprise. Congress was never going to accept the passage of the whole package. The US is very concerned with its energy needs at the moment and the rejection of the protocol in its previous form was bound to come. We on this side of the House support the Kyoto process--although the scientific basis for it may not be wholly secure in all aspects--and we are very glad that the United Kingdom is hitting its targets. This is due, of course, to the move away from coal-fired generation, which has been going on for some years.
	The task now is to negotiate in a friendly and understanding way with the Americans because a credible alternative to Kyoto exists. This will be important. I do not have time to elaborate on it now, but I hope that the noble Baroness or other Ministers will ensure that that message reaches the Deputy Prime Minister. It does not seem to have reached him so far.
	At the end of the Cold War, a number of people thought that the Atlantic linkage, the relationship with the United States, would matter less; that there would be more inclination for countries to do their own thing. Experience has shown that the relationship matters more than ever in a disordered and fluid world with changed power centres. It matters more also because of the enormous vigour of the US economy. It is taking a break now, but it has driven the entire global system forward with great benefit to millions of people--despite the kind of riots that we saw yesterday--over the past decade.
	At the same time, anti-Americanism is latent in Europe. One sees it in a number of aspects and attitudes all around us. In my view, it is directly against UK interests to see that anti-Americanism fostered and inflamed. Avant-garde European policymakers talk about rejecting American culture. In fact, the USA today embodies and conserves some of the best of our values and principles better, possibly, than the European region. I was very interested in a television series organised by Lucy Worsthorne--Old New World--which makes the point that we need to look in America to find the best values that we want to preserve in Europe.
	The time has come to rid ourselves of prejudices about America and to renew the UK/US partnership--and indeed the US/European Union partnership--and to back the American concerns, not by dividing NATO but by expanding it, ideally to include the Baltic states. The US needs engagement in Europe as much as we need the United States. Within Europe, that applies to the UK most of all. The government who forget that will not be lightly forgiven. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the close and complex relations between the US and the UK. It enables me to highlight the constructive policies and action of the Government in working with the rest of Europe in developing a mature and more equal relationship with the United States. Like many others in the UK, I and my family have enjoyed living and working in the USA--in our case, off and on for 30 years, from the turbulent times in the 1960s to the technological transformation of the 1990s.
	The relations with the USA of individuals and political parties are usually coloured by how they look at American practices and customs. Like many on the left, I could not and cannot understand the highly unequal and ineffective social welfare arrangements in the United States. It was the fear that the UK might move in that direction that first drove me into politics and the Labour Party after returning from the United States.
	Over the years since then, the Labour Party and the Labour governments have not disappointed me or their many supporters. They have not only maintained and strengthened our welfare state but have been proud to associate themselves with the other countries of Europe and the idea of a social Europe with overarching human rights legislation. We can be proud that this is presented to the world as an alternative to that offered by the American state. If anything, this message needs to be made even more strongly by the Government. The views of the Opposition on this point continue to be rather confused.
	Perhaps I may now turn to the more exciting and constructive aspects of our relations. Since its inception, the United States has provided to the world a veritable cascade of innovation--social, political, cultural and technological. The British have not only benefited hugely from these developments, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, quite rightly emphasised, but, through our great creativity, we have participated and contributed to them. One thinks of Tom Paine in the 18th century and his seminal contributions to openness in the United States; Charlie Chaplin in films; the inventor of the jet engine; and even the world-wide web. The USA is always generous in its acknowledgements, as I know it is in its reports of hurricane predictions and the superior accuracy of those from the UK Met Office.
	A vital aspect of the future of US/UK relations concerns how the UK manages its business and technology policies in the face of the highly competitive practices of the US Government. How is the UK Government working to meet this challenge? My comments are based upon my experience as a scientist, a civil servant and as director of a small company. I declare an interest.
	Through increased government support for the UK's involvement in world-leading European science and technology projects--in biology (such as the Genome), in space, in nuclear (such as CERN at Geneva), in plasma physics (such as the European TORUS at Culham), and climate prediction research--UK scientists and industry are competing and collaborating with the US on equal terms. This is essential to ensure a proper international debate and open arrangements for the new scientific problems and technologies, such as climate change and global positioning satellites.
	This is also the best way in which we can help the USA, which will ultimately suffer and probably make the wrong decisions if it dominates excessively the world. We have the worrying new dimension of the United States international technology policy with its threatened unilateral abrogation of international treaties of climate, and now arms, control.
	In negotiating with the USA on these treaties--I again echo some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell--it is very important that the UK Government should emphasise the industrial aspect, and particularly the support of Kyoto by many industries such as the major energy corporations. In a recent statement at Nice, a senior technology representative of Shell commented on the fact that it is the constraints of Kyoto which is driving forward the technology.
	My second point on this aspect of our relations concerns the dissemination of information, especially that of commercial value. On the one hand, the USA has an admirable policy of openness about government data which greatly benefits the competitiveness of US science and industry. The UK is moving slowly in this direction through international agreements and our new Freedom of Information Act, both, of course, stimulated by the USA. However, in these respects, I believe that we still remain a poor relation, as the Royal Society has noted in its representations to the Government.
	On the other hand, the US is using its international law and organisations and its own restrictive practice to inhibit certain uses of scientific data and commerce, and is even having a big impact on agriculture and medicine in developing countries. Compared to the US, there is a different approach to intellectual property rights in Europe and in the rest of the world. The Government need to emphasise and publicise these differences and to win the argument both in this country and abroad.
	My third point is that if you talk to US businessmen they will tell you that their government and all their agencies are probably the best in the world at supporting their business. I am afraid that in my many interactions with UK business I have never heard a similar sentiment expressed--although I am well aware of the enormous efforts made by our civil servants in the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in regard to many projects and companies. To indicate the difference between the UK and the USA, perhaps I may tell your Lordships a story about my dealings with a Minister in the previous government. He admonished me for suggesting that UK agencies should be working in that direction. He said, "That is the sort of thing they do in France and the United States".
	So there is more to do by way of enabling our Government and all their agencies to work and to compete with the United States. The present Government have made a good start. We should be confident about their continuing success as we enter a new and difficult phase.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, listening to the interesting speech of the noble and Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I was reminded of a remark that I greatly enjoyed made by Peter Rodman, now a member of the new administration, to a congressional committee a couple of years ago:
	"Rather than joyously falling in behind American leadership, the Europeans are seeking to counter American hegemony".
	I believe that the noble and Lord, Lord Howell, would like the British to fall in joyously behind American leadership. I should prefer Britain to be a partner of the United States, not a follower--and in order to be a partner with the US we need to be a partner with our European allies.
	The first few months of every new US administration are a shock to transatlantic relations. Some of us can remember the strange period when we went from Nixon to Ford, to Carter, to Reagan, all in a period of about seven years, with each new team coming over and saying, "Forget about what our predecessors told you. This is the line you have to follow". The new Bush administration has appointed a mixture of the reliable, the expert and the experienced alongside ideologues, America-firsters and the purely self-interested. It will take us some time to discover which group has emerged on top, and on which issue.
	But the first signs are not entirely encouraging. Insistence that the rest of the world should closely follow the rules of international law--as in transatlantic disputes over trade--while asserting that America itself cannot be constrained by rules negotiated with others represents a claim to moral and political supremacy which none of America's allies can accept. The influence of American business over policy seems excessive: on energy and the environment, on military procurement, and on trade. Almost no one in Washington seems to recall Bush's repeated campaign promise that the United States needs to be "humble" in the deployment of its power in order to co-operate with its partners and allies. The message that British Ministers and political leaders need to carry to the new administration is that it is in America's interests to work with its allies and not to take repeated unilateral initiatives and demand that its allies follow.
	My noble friend Lady Williams will say more about the new administration's approach to missile defence and the abrogation of the ABM treaty. I merely want to remark on the dangerous language used to dismiss treaties as "relics" when they no longer suit immediate political interests. If all states start to pick and choose which treaties they will continue to observe, we shall really be in trouble. The North Atlantic Treaty is, after all, 23 years older than the ABM treaty. Should that be considered a relic too?
	The depth of concern over the missile defence proposals in Europe seems to me entirely rational, partly because we see in Washington a perception of the world as fundamentally hostile to the United States--irreconcilably hostile, composed of rogue states, terrorists etc. We even see, as in one submission to Congress, the idea that selling an American software company to the Dutch suggests that it might fall into the hands of a potentially hostile state.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will say more on American attitudes to the International Criminal Court and to international law and human rights. Again, I merely want to note the recklessness with which conservative groups in Washington are now lobbying to wreck the OECD initiative on offshore financial centres--justified on the ideological grounds that lower taxation is an existential good, that tax evasion is therefore justifiable and that the collapse of multilateral efforts to limit tax evasion will force democratic European states to move away from welfare spending and public investment. That is deeply irresponsible and aggressively unilateral. I hope that the Bush administration will resist the pressure from its Right.
	Every new US administration sparks off articles in the British press about the future of the US/UK special relationship. I wish that the British could get away from the fixation about having a special relationship with the United States. America has several special relationships with other countries: with Israel--perhaps the most special of all; with Mexico--particularly important for a Spanish-speaking former Governor of Texas; with Germany--the relationship which the first President Bush deliberately emphasised as being more important than the US relationship with Britain, as transatlantic partners in leadership.
	There was a very special relationship between the US and British governments which grew out of the common experience of the Second World War. But that generation retired 30 years ago. Beyond the shared language, Britain as a country attracts no special respect or attention within Washington, except through the peculiar alliance between the libertarian Right in the United States and in Britain, which attempts to capture the Conservative Party for a free market ideology which is revolutionary but which lacks common sense. What remains of the old special relationship, and of the Cold War privileged position of Britain as the unsinkable aircraft carrier on this side of the Atlantic, is a limited nuclear relationship and a group of intelligence agreements.
	The UK/USA Agreement is a relic of a long-lost age: signed by the US and Britain in the immediate post-war years in the face of an evident enemy, when Britain was still an imperial and global power. Fifty-four years later, 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no longer a justification for Britain to accept an agreement that gives American intelligence agencies extra-territorial rights on British soil without any form of accountability to the British Parliament. That is a negation of British sovereignty far more direct than the limitations on sovereignty which Conservatives complain of as flowing from our membership of the EU.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, made much of the dangers of the current European defence proposals. These are modest proposals to fulfil modest Petersberg tasks. They are long overdue and they respond to American demands for the European allies to carry a larger share of the common defence burden, repeated over decades. It is absurd and against British interests for Iain Duncan Smith and others from the Euro-sceptic Right to go round Washington think-tanks and congressional committees attempting to persuade the Americans that this is a dangerous innovation and should be resisted. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, says that the United States is confused. Well, his party is helping to add to the confusion.
	It is rational for the United States to run down its forces in Europe, perhaps even to withdraw them over the next 10 years. Yesterday I read an interesting piece on how President Eisenhower did indeed foresee that the United States would withdraw all its forces from Europe by 1962--which was entirely rational in his terms. The European region, apart from the former Yugoslavia, is thankfully now a zone of peace which no longer needs a major US military contribution. European states should be able to manage the security of their own region on their own, transforming NATO into a broader security organisation. We cannot preserve in aspic the NATO of the 1950s. If we attempt to do so, NATO itself will become a museum piece.
	So I believe in a US/UK partnership with an active British engagement. But it must be an equal partnership. It must therefore be a partnership in which we are solidly rooted within the European pillar of the alliance and can therefore make our voice heard.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can confirm whether or not I heard him correctly. Did he say that there are significant figures in the United States who are advocating, or justifying, tax evasion? If I am correct, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give the House some examples?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I recommend that the noble Lord reads the article by Amity Shlaes in yesterday's Financial Times which dealt precisely with this subject and a number of articles published in the International Herald Tribune, especially one by Reginald Dale which I particularly remember over the past two weeks. There is, indeed, a very active lobby in Washington that wishes the United States to sabotage the current OECD initiative. The argument is precisely that it is entirely open and acceptable for corporate bodies to avoid paying taxation by operating through off-shore financial--

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord used the word "evasion". However, if it was "avoidance", I shall withdraw my intervention. Can the noble Lord confirm which word he means?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we could have much discussion on the issue at another time. The line between avoidance and evasion depends partly on how international regulations are drawn. That is precisely why the United States wishes the current initiative to collapse.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating today's debate. In a sense, I was puzzled as to why he did so. It reminded me of what Lord Whitelaw once said about stirring up apathy. I do not believe that there was any problem that I could have imagined between our relations with the United States, or as regards the US/European relationship. However, by talking incessantly about there being problems, the party opposite is making the situation worse--I mean the party opposite, not the party oblique. I have learned this little bit of geometry.
	I turn to the activities of the Shadow Secretary of State for defence and foreign affairs in going to Washington and saying things that are really not the kind of comments that those in opposition parties should make when they are abroad. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, put it much more politely than I would have done. Had we made such remarks when we were in opposition, the Conservative Party would have denounced us for betraying the nation, and so on. I believe that the Conservatives have confused the American Government about the role of the rapid reaction force. They have exaggerated its importance and then asked them to disown it.
	The American administration are new; and all new administrations have a learning curve. As yet, the Bush administration are very low on the learning curve. They have not sorted out their policies, even those regarding the national missile defence. A first proper statement was made only yesterday because, quite rightly, there was a defence review--and we do not even know the results of that review. The administration are tentatively thinking about national missile defence. As far as I know, every time that anything has been said from across the water about national missile defence, the British Government have welcomed it. We have not opposed it; indeed, we are willing to consider it.
	Therefore, I do not know why this alarm and despondency is being spread around by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I do not believe that there is any problem about national missile defence, as between us and the Americans. I also believe that there is no problem with the rapid reaction force. Again, there are clear accounts of where the joint planning will be carried out--for example, whether it will be at national or at NATO level. There was a long article on the subject in the Financial Times just two days ago, which I recommend to noble Lords. I do not have time to go into all the details involved.
	We must stop exciting things that are actually not worth disturbing. The relations between the US and the UK are good; indeed, they continue to be good. What we need is a little cross-party co-operation in order to keep them good, rather than this unilateral attempt to go across the Atlantic and undermine, so to speak, the stance of the British Government who are in a difficult position. I shall tell noble Lords why I believe that to be so important. Given globalisation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, knows a great deal, it is most important that relations between the United States and the European Union should not in any way be derailed. We shall need much co-operation in the forthcoming round of the WTO talks. We cannot fall apart. If we do so, the pace of globalisation will be altered. It is not in our interests at any stage to start exaggerating the differences between the United States and the European Union or those between the US and the United Kingdom.
	If we stop the process of WTO enlargement, expansion and deepening, there are forces in the United States, in Europe and elsewhere that do not like globalisation. They will take the opportunity to stop the process. As I have said several times, I strongly believe that globalisation is the best hope for the poor of the world. Therefore, this is more important than narrow party interest. The US and the EU must stay on very good terms with one another, despite all the quarrels that they have about hormone beef, bananas, and many other matters. We must stay together.
	The United Kingdom has a very good role to play precisely because it has strong ties with the US--I shall not use the expression "special relationship"--and because we are an important member of the European Union. Therefore, we have formed a sort of bridge. Again, I believe that we should emphasise the variety of ways in which the UK Government can play a crucial role in building the bridge and in keeping the US and EU glued together in a trade partnership. That will be the most important element for the WTO. If that is lost, things will get very bad. The world was once globalised, and then it de-globalised; the result was the First World War. We cannot afford any kind of battles now because the situation is much worse. I believe that it is best to emphasise friendship and co-operation rather than alarm and despondency.
	I should like to make a few further remarks. I turn, first, to slowdown. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord about the US slowdown. The first quarter figures of US GDP show that perhaps there has not been a slowdown. Again, I am not normally a friend of central bankers, but I believe that Alan Greenspan has read the situation correctly in this instance. His aggressive interest rate cutting, somewhat followed by the MPC here, was a good move. The European Central Bank can do whatever it can do; that is not the issue. However, I believe that the current monetary policy of the United States has succeeded in averting a slowdown. That is good.
	I see from the Clock that my time is running out, so I shall conclude by making one point. Yes, there is a good deal of common culture between us and them. I welcome that fact. However, as friends, we should also be critical in those values; for example, I do not believe that we share the President's love for capital punishment. I certainly do not share it. In terms of human rights protection, we should point out to the US that that is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is our right to say so. I shall stop on that kind of conciliatory note.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord and to identify the very large area of common ground between him and my noble friend Lord Howell as regards his opening speech. The noble Lord was quite right to warn against hysteria and over-reaction, especially to a new government in their post-campaign stage. He was quite right also to stress the huge importance of the transatlantic inter-continental partnership. I would not, of course, endorse everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai; indeed, he would be astonished if I were to do so. However, I should like to start off on a conciliatory note.
	I move on to my central point, which really amplifies one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I refer to the so-called "special relationship", about which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, also spoke. It is of huge importance for us not to mislead ourselves by having false expectations of that phrase, as is so often the case. Lest that should seem unfriendly, I should stress that it is certainly not my intention to be so.
	I have many interests to declare. I am on the advisory councils of two American financial institutions, one university and one law firm. They all emphasise the links between our two countries. Indeed, the law firm link is one of the strongest because of the strength of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition which we share and which has brought great benefit to many other parts of the world. Again, the English language and our common culture are of enormous importance. There are other matters that are of diminishing importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly identified. The nuclear relationship, which is crucial to us for as long as it lasts, is of diminishing, if any, significance to the United States. The intelligence relationship is much more important to us than it is to the United States.
	I want to emphasise that none of these links gives, or should be allowed to give, us any assurance of a huge special clout in our relationship with the United States on major issues which are of importance to its national interest. The early warning sign which led to some understanding of that occurred way back in the Suez crisis. Colleagues in the more recent administration of which I was a member will well remember the impact upon our position of what happened in Grenada when there was no doubt whatsoever that not only was there no effective consultation but it was consciously avoided. The special relationship did not count for anything then. Therefore, it is important for us not to overrate our own standing, as we may be tempted to do.
	The real truth about the transatlantic UK/US relationship was well identified way back in 1962 when Harold Macmillan set out in a long pamphlet his reasons for launching the first attempt to join the European Community. He stated:
	"If we remain outside the European Community, it seems to me inevitable that the realities of power would compel our American friends to attach increasing weight to the views and interests of the Community, and to pay less attention to our own".
	He stated that if we followed that path we would lose influence both in Europe and in Washington.
	The same point has been carefully and sensibly repeated not by all American ambassadors to this country but certainly by Ambassador Raymond Seitz, who emphasised the central point that,
	"America's transatlantic policy is European in scope. It is not a series of individual or compartmentalised bilateral policies ... There is a simple observation that if Britain's voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington".
	That seems to me to be the central argument we must understand which shapes the hugely important and continuing UK/US relationship.
	There are, of course, times when this impression appears to have been altered significantly. Sometimes particular statesmen in Europe acquire a standing in the United States which appears to shift the intercontinental perception. I suppose someone like Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who was in office for years, by his sheer experience enhanced German input during his period in office. There is no doubt whatsoever that the enduring experience, achievement and personality of my noble friend Lady Thatcher certainly heightened Britain's impact during her period in office.
	Some might have cherished the illusion that the arrival of the present Prime Minister at No. 10 heralded the development of a new personal relationship, partly because of the Blair/Clinton relationship and partly because of the sheer scale of his electoral success. However, expectations of that kind have been increasingly disappointed on both sides of the Atlantic. I was struck by an observation of the American author, Owen Harris, in an article in his journal, The National Interest, where he describes the Prime Minister as a kind of British Gorbachev,
	"in that he believes that statesmanship consists of taking flying leaps into the future without any clear idea of where one will land".
	That is paralleled by the rather extraordinary way in which he set off in almost unseemly pursuit of President Putin in Russia and the fluency with which he talks of the European Union as a super-power. One has to be realistic when trying to build these relationships.
	I emphasise the most important point in the American/European relationship which we need to develop--here to some extent I differ from my noble friend--and that is not to point to the difficulties in developing the security and defence initiative and not to identify the insurmountable problems of developing what was originally an Anglo-French scheme for a rapid reaction force, but to emphasise the overwhelming need for us to succeed in that in a way that is acceptable to the United States.
	My noble friend was entirely right to draw attention to the points which are causing concern in the United States. However, as my noble friend Lord Hurd pointed out in a speech about a month ago, if we can develop that project it will enable us above all to galvanise the quality and quantity of European input into its own defence. There is tremendous American interest in that. Of course we must do it in a fashion that is NATO friendly and which can be made to work within the alliance. The command structures and the emergency plans must be worked out. There must be an agreement which will placate the Turks.
	The project is exactly the kind of mechanism through which we could and should fulfil our role in the transatlantic relationship, using the United States/United Kingdom relationship to strengthen the capacity of Europe to come together. I sometimes despair of the extent to which our European partners fall short of our expectations in that respect. However, that is no reason to give up and conclude that we should abandon the project because the Americans do not like it. It is in their and our interests that it should succeed and it is an important facet in the US/UK relationship within our European framework.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, with which I entirely agree. I am delighted by the prospect of his being joined in this House by his much better half. We shall soon hear her independent wise counsel.
	I cannot be accused of anti-Americanism. Relations between my immediate family and the United States are close and intimate. We have all benefited from graduate education there, thanks to the generosity of American foundations. I have returned there again and again. When Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary and I was his Special Adviser in 1974, we visited the States together to learn about equality legislation, freedom of information legislation and policy on criminal justice.
	What we learned was valuable. It was derived from a public philosophy shared on both sides of the Atlantic by those committed to democratic government, the effective protection of human rights and the rule of law, internationally and nationally. It was a philosophy exemplified by the way in which great Justices such as John Marshall, Holmes, Harlan, Brandeis and Cardozo developed judicial review and the values of the American Bill of Rights and English common law, protecting the individual and minorities against the tyranny of majorities and the abuse of power by public officials.
	Those civic values continue to inspire liberal democrats of whatever party everywhere and are shared by our European allies. But the vicissitudes of elective politics have given effect at present to a different set of values in the governing class in the United States--those exemplified by President Bush's administration and by the British Conservative Party under current management. Their values include a troubling failure to recognise that the most pressing and difficult problems that beset the world do not respect national frontiers; that the problems of nuclear proliferation, over-population, energy depletion, environmental degradation, racism, terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and abuses of human rights require supranational co-operation and supervision and effective international safeguards and remedies.
	Nothing exemplifies the gulf between the two public philosophies better than the debates about the International Criminal Court. President Bush's administration refuse to ratify the statute of the court and the British Conservative Party bizarrely opposes UK ratification unless and until the United States ratifies the statute.
	There are enlightened and informed voices in the United States that need to be heeded. The American Bar Association has called for the States to ratify and to enact appropriate domestic legislation. Mr Monroe Leigh, former Legal Adviser to the State Department and to the Defence Department, wrote on 21st February to the Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations to rebut the views expressed by a number of distinguished former Cabinet officers. His letter was supported by 10 former presidents of the American Society of International Law including its honorary president and former United States judge on the International Court of Justice, Stephen Schwebel, who tried to teach me what I know of public international law at Harvard Law School.
	The joint letter explained that the testimony opposed to the creation of the International Criminal Court,
	"suffers from a fatal misconception as to fundamental principles of international law. This is the assumption that if the opponents of the ICC succeed in preventing the International Criminal Court from coming into existence, or even in preventing the United States from becoming a party, they will have saved American officials and service members from trial in a foreign court if charged with one of the crimes within the limited jurisdiction of the proposed new court; i.e., genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity".
	The letter continues:
	"Seldom in the course of public discussion of a great national issue have so many great and good former officials been so misinformed about fundamental principles of international law. Without some international agreement to the contrary, the American airmen shot down, for example, while carrying out a bombing mission over foreign territory, will under customary international law be subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the target state.
	The point we make is that unless there is agreement to the contrary, every high American official, whether military or civilian, when that official enters the territory of a foreign sovereign, is subject to its jurisdiction if he or she violates its laws. This is true now; it was true when the twelve distinguished signatories served their country in the past. It will be true in the future whether officially serving the United States abroad or not. The same is true, incidentally, for every American tourist travelling abroad and reciprocally for every foreign tourist visiting the United States.
	We believe the American negotiators have done an outstandingly effective job in negotiating a Treaty which protects both the national security interests of the United States and the individual rights of American nationals, including those in military service abroad.
	We dissent only from the continuing attempts of the U.S. negotiators to obtain agreement for the exemption of nationals of the United States and of other non-parties from the jurisdiction of the proposed court. This exceptional demand has been repeatedly rejected by our principal allies in NATO, many of whom also have troops at risk outside their homelands. The persistence of the United States in pressing this demand for exemption, can only exacerbate relations with our allies and undermine the cohesion of the alliance".
	After some further argument, the letter concluded that,
	"if and when the new Court exercises its jurisdiction it must do so subject to a list of due process protections for the accused which are at least as comprehensive as the American Bill of Rights--in certain cases even more detailed and specific.
	For all these reasons we believe the Treaty is consistent with the security interests of the United States and the due process interests of U.S. citizens. Accordingly, we as current and former Presidents of the American Society of International Law (as well as the current Honorary President)--but speaking only in our personal capacities--favour U.S. acceptance of the Treaty without change in the text".
	Let us hope that this wise and well-informed advice is heeded by American Republicans and British Conservatives, in the interests of the international rule of law and effective protection of the peoples of our troubled and dangerous world.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for initiating this most important debate in which we can examine crucial elements of our relationship with the US. In that relationship, I am clear that the United Kingdom operates on the world stage as a leading and fully paid up member of the European Union. Yet, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I am not defensive about calling it a "special relationship". I believe that we have a cast-iron, industrial-strength relationship--or perhaps we should call it a "partnership"--with the United States and that we shall always continue to do so. My daughter's recent wedding in San Francisco's City Hall has given me a whole new take on the phrase "special relationship".
	As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, our shared history creates the strong ties of kinship between Britain and North America which are an immense asset to us in the modern world. That has been recognised and acted on by our Government. As the United States and Britain, we are each other's closest allies, but our value as an ally to our friends in Washington is in direct proportion to our influence with our partners in Europe.
	I do not accept, and never have done in my 15 years in elected European politics, that our European identity diminishes our Britishness; neither, I believe, does it diminish our ties with America--in fact, quite the opposite. Yet there are those who would seek to drive a wedge between ourselves and our European partners in the dynamics of that cast-iron relationship that I believe we have with the United States. Indeed, some Eurosceptics now argue that Britain's destiny lies outside Europe as part of the English-speaking world and as a member of NAFTA. The reason that over 4,000 US companies have located here in Britain is because they want to export to Europe. If they wanted only to sell to NAFTA, they would have stayed at home. Our strong relationship with our EU partners enhances the special relationship with the United States.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, sought to raise as a problem the question of European defence. I disagree with the thrust of his argument although I accept his remarks about the anxieties which may be prevalent in the US at present. As we know, it was agreed at Nice to give the European Union the capacity to conduct military operations in response to international crises when NATO is not engaged. The report agreed at Nice explicitly states that this does not involve the creation of a European army. Therefore this latest myth--that the European defence will weaken NATO and undermine our relationship with the United States--needs exploding. The fact is that better European capabilities will strengthen the contribution of the European countries to NATO as well as the EU.
	I touch on another aspect of our US/UK relations. There are those politicians who claim to have Britain's best interests at heart. Yet we are told that they have recently been criticising--some might even say bad-mouthing--this country to anyone in the United States who will listen to them. As we are all too aware, the tourism industry in some of our regions is under severe pressure and jobs are under great threat because of the foot and mouth outbreak. I chair the West Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium. This week we received a report of the current difficulties that face the tourism industry in my region. It makes sober reading. We need our American visitors to keep coming to our great attractions and our historic sites such as Stratford and Warwick Castle. Those visits have become part of the American experience in our country. The last thing this country needs is political representatives, who should know better, warning off American visitors, claiming that our countryside is closed, our food is not safe and our country is washed up.
	Finally, I share the unease expressed by many noble Lords about some aspects of the first 100 days of the Bush administration. As well as the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, there has also been a rolling back of work-safety measures as well as policy developments which favour large corporations at the expense of the little man and woman. These measures are not good news to many of America's European allies. But we must also realise--here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell--that US policymakers have their own frustrations with some of those allies. I refer, for instance, to US perceptions of foot-dragging on enlargement; and the distinctly underwhelming military capabilities of the EU countries, as evidenced during the Kosovo air campaign, to name but two factors. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, Britain and America need to open up an even stronger dialogue to overcome those points of difference about global norms and governance. I am optimistic that there is good will on both sides for that to happen.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving the House this opportunity to debate perhaps the most crucial aspect of the Government's current foreign policy: namely, our relations with the new United States administration.
	Those who have heard me speak in previous foreign affairs debates will not be surprised if I concentrate on a subject that deserves more attention than it sometimes receives in the House--the situation in the Middle East, and most particularly the highly dangerous situation in the Arab occupied territories of Palestine.
	Having spent two years of my diplomatic service career in Washington exchanging views on the Middle East on a daily basis with the United States administration, I know how closely our two governments have always kept in touch about that part of the world, which has such vital implications for our mutual interests, even if our approaches have not always been closely in line.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about the more recent contacts and discussions between our two administrations at official and ministerial level on the current situation in the Middle East since President Bush was inaugurated. The House has had several opportunities to hear from the Government and to debate the respective policies of the United States and British Governments towards Saddam Hussein and the question of sanctions against Iraq. We also had a useful opportunity last week to discuss the current situation in Iran. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able, on the basis of contacts and discussions with Washington, to give us some reasons to hope that the United States administration is fully seized of the serious dangers in the current situation in the occupied territories and that it is readier to use its influence in the Arab-Israel dispute than it seemed to be in the first few weeks after the inauguration.
	I hope that the Minister might also be able to tell us something about Mr Shimon Peres' current diplomatic efforts and give us her assessment of whether they are likely to bring some alleviation to the suffering of both sides from the violence that has erupted since Mr Ariel Sharon's infamous and provocative visit to the Dome of the Rock last September.
	The Minister and her predecessor have reiterated on several occasions in the past few years the view of Her Majesty's Government that Israeli settlement policy constitutes a serious infringement of international law. I hope that she can tell us something of our exchanges with the United States administration on this subject, given the appalling infringement of human rights that the continued presence and expansion of those settlements has caused for their Palestinian neighbours. I have often wondered whether those American Jews who become Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have any concept of the illegality of the settlements that they are helping to expand or of the real dangers that Israeli settlement policy under successive governments poses for them. As long as those settlements continue to expand, what sort of future can their children or their grandchildren expect?
	We should not underestimate the deep resentment and anger that the repeated ill treatment and expropriation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is causing among even the most moderate Arabs in Palestine. Mr Sharon is on record as saying that the security of Israel is his first priority. That is understandable. It must be a matter of deep concern to all Israel's friends and supporters. However, I question whether Israel's security is likely to be enhanced by the policies and the systematic breach of human rights that the Israeli Government have been pursing since Mr Sharon became Prime Minister. Is it not time that Mr Sharon's supporters in Washington--who are the only people who can exert any effective influence on him--tried to persuade him that there is no greater threat to Israel or to her settlers, now and in the future, than the continued expansion and development of settlements in the occupied territories and the wanton destruction of Palestinian farms and orchards, often under the slender pretext that olive trees, many of which have taken generations to become profitable, are being used to hide terrorists?
	It is worth noting that there have been a few encouraging signs in recent weeks. First, the United States Government have been unusually prepared to describe the recent Israeli action against Gaza as excessive and disproportionate. Secondly, Yasser Arafat is now showing genuine determination to try to reduce and restrain the violence on the Palestinian side. I strongly believe that unless and until the Israeli Government take the admittedly difficult political decision to freeze any further Jewish settlement of the Occupied Territories, and, hopefully, to withdraw, there is little hope that Yasser Arafat's calls for moderation can be effective.
	I shall be interested to hear the Government's views on those issues and whether they see any prospect of getting Washington to persuade the Israeli Government that their present settlement policy is doing nothing to further security in the West Bank and Gaza, or even in Israel itself. I believe that it is having the opposite effect. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, emphasised the importance of resisting the tendency to anti-Americanism. In the same vein, I hope that my remarks will not be regarded as anti-Israel. I sincerely believe that Israel's own interests argue for a change of policy.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I enormously respect his intellect and his expertise. However, I shall not speak about the same subjects as he has dealt with. I shall talk about two very different matters--Kyoto and European defence.
	We all read the papers over the weekend. The polls seemed to show that, in the eyes of the American public, the President has made a good start. I suspect that they like a man who does not flannel and who says what he believes rather than what he imagines people might want to hear. We should be pleased, because President Bush's economic policies, particularly his determination to cut taxes and to cut government spending as a proportion of GDP, offer the best hope of preventing America drifting into recession, to the disadvantage of us all.
	However, there are some dangers. An EU wedded to a mixture of socialism and corporate capitalism and an America imbued with the spirit of free enterprise are not natural soul mates. Disagreements could fuel the long-standing European resentment of American economic and military dominance, which in turn could encourage America into a damaging isolationism--although I sincerely hope that it will not.
	There have been plenty of recent examples of anti-Americanism here as well as in Europe, warping judgment and souring debate. It surfaced in the other place, where some truly infantile remarks have been made about the President and Kyoto. In 1997, the Senate voted 95 to nil against even considering ratification of a Kyoto deal that exempted 80 per cent of the world. Today, Democrats and Republicans alike would be even less likely to give the green light to Kyoto, because, following spectacular economic growth in the past few years, it would mean America having to cut emissions by more than 40 per cent, which could not be done without catastrophic effects on the American and the world economy.
	It is absurd to talk of the President giving way to pressure from the oil industry when in fact he was facing up to the political arithmetic and recognising that to attempt to implement Kyoto when America is facing an economic downturn and an energy shortage would be an act of supreme folly.
	Therefore, now that the President has faced facts, everyone can get to work in America to develop an alternative energy strategy, allowing for growth and conservation. Now that the administration has made clear that it is not turning its back on the whole issue of global warming but will attend future talks on the subject, what is needed in Europe is less self-righteous anger and more appreciation of America's difficulties and encouragement to her to find a way forward.
	Neither has the proposal for a European rapid reaction force helped relations between Europe and America or, thanks to the Prime Minister's leading role in the matter, relations between Britain and America. Shortly after the initiative was unveiled, Mr Cook insisted that,
	"the American President, Defence Secretary and Secretary of State have all warmly endorsed the initiative".
	Since then, he has continued to assert that the administration is quite happy. However, when he says that, he is inviting us to ignore completely statements of concern made time and time again by people in authority in America. Concern there indeed is; confusion there indeed is; and it has not been generated by shadow Ministers visiting Washington.
	I remind the House that within days of Mr Cook's original statement, the then Defence Secretary, Mr Cohen, was making plain his concerns. His successor, Donald Rumsfeld, has repeatedly raised worries that the rapid reaction force will "endanger NATO", "inject instability" and "put at risk something special".
	Although our Government have asserted repeatedly that the force would not be independent of NATO and would not act without the agreement of NATO, and although Mr Blair personally assured the President at their meeting in America that there would be a joint command and that the planning would take place within NATO, all those statements have been flatly contradicted not only in statements by European leaders but by the plain words of Annex VII of the Presidency report on European security and defence policy after Nice. I remind the House that that refers to,
	"the development of consultation and co-operation between the EU and NATO in full respect of the autonomy of EU decision-making";
	to,
	"the EU keeping NATO informed of the general progress of an operation";
	and to,
	"the entire chain of command having to remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation".
	I have no doubt that the Americans would like the countries of Europe to pay more for their own defence and peace-keeping. But they know full well that France's policy has long been to undermine American influence in Europe and that many leaders in the EU believe, as does President Chirac, that--I quote the President--
	"the EU cannot fully exist until it possesses autonomous capacity for action in the field of defence".
	It is a sad and sorry tale. One can only hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that this or another government will work to bring about a change in what at present is bound to damage NATO. However, currently things seem to be moving quickly in the wrong direction with, first, the appointment of a general from Finland--outside NATO--to chair the EU's permanent military committee; secondly, the French Chief of Staff, General Kelche, saying that the force must be declared operational by the end of the year, even if agreement is not reached with NATO, and that it must have its own planning staff; and, thirdly, General Wesley Clark reporting to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that talks are currently taking place back-stage in the EU in relation to the EU considering refusing to share crucial information with NATO and having its own command and staff organisations. No one can be happy about any of that.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, although I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in tabling this Motion, I believe, as he knows from my views about the matter, that it would have been more valuable to consider the relationship, and the developments in that relationship, between the United States and the European Union. In my experience, today that is increasingly the way that most Americans consider us--that is, as part of the European Union.
	There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that a great feeling of affinity exists between the United States and Europe. Obviously, we have areas of mutual interest. However, I believe it is fair to say that, although we emphasise the special relationship between our country and the United States, other parts of Europe are also expressing their special relationship with the United States. Of course, we have the additional advantage of sharing with the US a common language and a common background. In particular, the basis of American democracy and civil rights lay in the knowledge of, and often the reaction against, what had developed here.
	The Library of this House obtained for me the tabulation of population by selected ancestry group and region from the American census. The American census was taken in 1990 and the figures were collated. Another census took place recently, but the figures will not all be collated and published until 2002. However, according to the information supplied to the Library by the American Embassy, it is not thought that many changes will occur, apart from a considerable increase in the Hispanic ancestry group.
	It is interesting to look at those figures because it gives us an idea of the basis for the affinity between America and Europe. It will not surprise some people to know that by a long way the largest ancestry group is the German one. In the census, the figure for German ancestry was found to be 58 million, far out-distancing, for example, Italian ancestry at 14.5 million and Irish ancestry at, surprisingly, nearly 39 million.
	So far as concerns our country, very few people put down their ancestry as British but many more listed it as English. There were also entries for Scottish, Scottish-Irish, which I presume to be the Ulster connotation, and Welsh ancestry. If those figures are added together, they do not begin to reach the figure for German ancestry. However, added together, they create the second largest group at approximately 47 million people.
	When one looks at the table, one sees that there is a relationship with every country in Europe. From Scandinavia to Russia down to the Mediterranean, all countries are represented in the ancestral groups of the United States. That, of course, is the basis of the great importance of the union and alliance between North America--indeed, the Americas--and Europe.
	Perhaps I may address the question of security. Years ago when I was the defence spokesman for the Liberal Party in another place and when I received valuable advice from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who, in those days, was not in the House but gave me guidance, we used to regard the Atlantic Alliance as having two pillars: the North American pillar, which was already established, and the European pillar, which everybody hoped would be established. Eventually, the goal became the achievement of a balance between the two pillars; they would both contribute in important ways to the security of Europe and the United States. Although the American pillar is in place, we have singularly failed in Europe, whether as independent sovereign states or as the European Union, to create that second pillar. It is high time we did so.
	My second point relates to trade. The EU is eventually going to become--indeed, it already is--a huge economic power. It will in time rival the Americans, although there is no rivalry as such about it. It is essential to establish the basis of the relationship between the United States and the Americas, as she seeks to create a free trade area in her region. We have created a free trade area in Europe. The chances of success for a peaceful, established and secure future for the world depend on the alliance between the United States, which will lead in the Americas, and the European Union, which will lead in this region. Our contribution must be to ensure that the European Union is effective. If we fail to support the basis of the relationship and the affinities that exist between the United States and Europe, we shall have let the world down.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating this most interesting debate. I am also grateful to the unknown person who has conferred "Lordship" on me!
	Both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office review and the defence policy review for this year recognise that Britain's strategic partnership with NATO remains fundamental to the interests of Britain and the United States and that NATO and the continuing engagement of the United States in Europe continue to be the primary means of ensuring British and European collective security and defence.
	With the strong support of Harry Truman, General George Marshall, Dean Atcheson and our own Ernest Bevin, NATO was formed after the Soviet Union had rejected the Marshall Plan for herself and her subject peoples, had invaded Czechoslovakia and had been prevented from seizing Berlin by the 323-day American and British airlift. Since that shield was created, we have had peace. NATO guaranteed the marriage of defence and detente. West Germany was brought into NATO as early as 1954.
	I had the honour to serve for a time in SOE instructing and briefing a special force, the Jedburghs, which was created to jump into occupied France before, during and after D-Day to support and direct the efforts of the Resistance in Europe. Many later operated against the Japanese in the Far East. The Jedburghs were three-man teams--two officers and a wireless operator--of which one was British, one was French, Belgian or Dutch and one was American. We have met at intervals ever since and we are still close friends.
	NATO has created rather similar bonds. Lord Ismay once called it:
	"The decent club where friends can fight and even agree".
	I have gone on having that relationship with Americans throughout my life. However, we should never take friends for granted. There is now, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said with far more detail than I can offer, a very significant Hispanic element in the United States. It is, however, largely a Latin American Hispanic element, which has no special affinity with the Anglo-Saxon or even the European world and which shares neither language nor legal and other traditions with us. The growing number of Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese Americans look to the Pacific, not across the Atlantic. Both their economic interests and the potential threat from a new and aggressive superpower lie there. This is not therefore the moment to take American support for, or even interest in, our policies for granted. The special relationship, though not unique, does exist, but it is being tested now, not least by the Russian strategy in Europe and the evident wish of both the French and perhaps the Germans to assert the autonomy of the new European force.
	I shall not cite the abundant evidence--my noble friend Lord Waddington did so to great effect--in the various Council annexes of the EU intention to plan, direct and operate independently of NATO. Unfortunately, those who created the text did not take the admirable advice that was given when the Atlantic Treaty was framed; namely, that it should be,
	"written in such simple language that even a milkman in Omaha can understand it".
	I fear that the newly appointed Finnish head of the EU military committee also seems to suffer from a certain lack of understanding.
	What concerns me, and is likely to concern Washington, is the quiet, unpublicised and virtually unacknowledged special relationship that the EU high representative, Mr Solana, is building under the umbrella of the common strategy on Russia with Russia precisely in the area of European security for which the special status of Russia with NATO under the Founding Act was designed. Solana has proudly claimed that that is a very intensive and important relationship. At the EU summit in Paris in October 2000 the Russian press reported that Solana, Presidents Chirac and Putin and Senor Prodi approved a document in which Russia expressed readiness to co-operate with the EU on defence and security; they thought that it was important to create a single security system in Europe. The causes that gave rise to NATO no longer existed. Ivanov, the Russian spokesman, added that the EU and Russia share the same views on the American proposals relating to the ABM treaty and the NMR.
	The Minister of State did not, when asked, remember anything about that agreement but later wrote to confirm that we had been consulted. He said that it was a declaration and,
	"a purely political text which imposes no legal obligation on either the EU or Russia--it meets the objectives that we should seek to involve potential partners in European crisis management, not least Russia, by engaging in dialogue on European security issues".
	It was published as a joint declaration but does not appear among any of the annexes to the Treaty of Nice.
	The declaration states--I quote only part of it--that:
	"In order to give substance to the strategic partnership between the European Union and the Russian Federation ... we decided to institute specific consultation on security and defence matters at the appropriate level and in the appropriate format".
	It stated that an aim was:
	"To develop strategic dialogue on matters particularly in regard to security which have implications for the Russian Federation and the European Union".
	It also referred to the aim to:
	"Extend the scope of regular consultation at expert level on the issues of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation, and promote cooperation in operational crisis management".
	The implementation of those decisions will be a priority.
	Apart from crisis management, those are precisely the issues for which NATO created the Founding Act to provide a mechanism for discussion with the Russians. The EU is thus enabling Russia both to make NATO's role redundant and to open a door for Russia to achieve access to intelligence and strategic planning that NATO knows how to contain but which the EU does not. Russia is entitled to extend her influence in Europe in every way in which she can, but does anyone doubt that her object is to bring about the withdrawal of the US from Europe and to frustrate US policy? She will use the relationship with the CFSP and with Solana to advance her view on the NMR as a European view. Arms control and non-proliferation are on the agenda. Robert Schuman said of NATO when the Atlantic Treaty was signed that:
	"Only a potential aggressor would have any grounds for considering itself threatened by the Treaty".
	I submit that that is relevant to the present Chinese and Russian opposition to the NMR, which is also a defensive mechanism, as I believe Her Majesty's Government have recognised.
	What will be on the agenda at the next EU-Russia summit in Moscow in May, and what happened at Stockholm? The Russians will lose no opportunity to drive a wedge between the EU and the US. Can we afford to allow Mr Solana's initiative to pre-empt or to commit us to--or at the least to associate us, as a member of the EU, with--policies that could have as a result the undermining of NATO? Who will be representing the EU, and therefore us, in the discussions about arms control and arms proliferation with a country which is still selling nuclear weapons and know-how to potential aggressor countries and which has still not disposed of one ounce of the 40 tonnes of chemical weapons that it holds?
	It will not be surprising if the US--without whose support, particularly in the realm of intelligence, we shall be in great difficulty--should begin to consider withdrawal from the affairs of Europe. Already the same people who led the campaign against the stationing of SS-20s in Europe many years ago are beginning to emerge once more. We have no Sakharov today to warn us.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as someone who has had an active interest in energy efficiency and the role it plays in protecting our environment for over 30 years, in this important debate I want to concentrate my comments on how our relationship with the US can proceed in the light not only of the breakdown in the climate change talks in The Hague last year, but also of the more recent comments by President Bush on the Kyoto Protocol.
	I start from a belief that everyone should recognise the fragility of our environment and the impossibility of maintaining current lifestyles without damaging it. I believe that governments have a responsibility to set a framework to enable individuals to respond to the need to reduce pollution and so protect our planet. But as has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, such matters cannot be contained within national boundaries. We therefore need to work with others to introduce clear environmental objectives into all international institutions to ensure that we have action across the globe.
	There have been climate cycles in the past. But there is evidence accumulating to suggest that the changes we have been experiencing are occurring faster and on a larger scale than any climate cycle in recent times. The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now says that scientists are convinced about global warming by a majority of 98 to two or 99 to one. It is unfortunate that President Bush seems to agree with the one to two per cent. Since the US, with barely five per cent of the world's population, is responsible for one-quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions, that is serious. One of the most devastating effects of global warning is the threat of flooding. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that one of the areas under threat is Miami--the state that returned President Bush to the presidency.
	When Kyoto was originally negotiated in 1997, each industrialised country agreed to meet reduction targets, based on 1990 emission levels, and set the date of 2010. The world target was 5.2 per cent. The US agreed to reduce by 7 per cent and the UK by 12.5 per cent. Since that time many of the major players have produced their programmes as to how they intend to meet their targets. We produced ours last autumn and agreed to cut greenhouse gases by 23 per cent. But as has already been alluded to, the previous US administration did not endorse any similar type of programme. Now there is a forecast in the US that there will be a 40 per cent rise in its emissions by 2010.
	Many people have spoken about the special relationship between the UK and the US and how it has changed over the years. But with others in the Chamber I believe that, in the matter of Kyoto, our relationship with Europe is important in trying to bring about a change. I am not saying that the EU can save the world. But it is big enough to start the cycle of negotiation turning in another direction on Kyoto.
	I want to highlight three main areas. First, President Bush believes that implementing the Kyoto Protocol will damage the American economy. Not for the first time I am grateful to the research done by Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy. His research shows that America could be every bit as wealthy today, if not more so, if it ensured that every time a new product was bought or a new building erected and refurbished, the most energy-efficient option was adopted. On average, Americans waste one dollar in every three that they spend on buying fuel. I am advised that consumption has been rising in America and it is now double for every person compared with Europe. If we cut out the profligacy, we would have a more resourced, productive society; fossil fuel consumption would be reduced and it would be relatively simple to meet the Kyoto criteria.
	Secondly, we should be trying to persuade the new government in America not to act too hastily in these areas. Already they have announced a 33 per cent reduction in their energy efficiency programme. That is disappointing because their own government General Accounting Office showed that over the past 20 years or more there has been a fourfold saving from any investment made in those areas.
	Again--this too was alluded to earlier by another noble Lord--President Bush declared an energy crisis in America, pointing in particular to California and the availability of electricity. Yet he is poised to block new rules designed to save electricity used by air conditioners and washing machines. Those new standards had been mandated by Congress and developed with manufacturers. We also hear that he is considering allowing millions of acres of US public land and offshore waters that were previously off limits to be opened up to drillers .
	Thirdly, I come to the proposed meeting in Bonn in July at which we and others intend to try to keep the Kyoto Protocol on the road. It is important to persuade the US Government that if they have views on this matter, they must table them well in advance of that meeting. If they bring them up a few days before the meeting we shall end up with the same debacle that we had at The Hague.
	I hope that the Government are broadly in agreement with those views and look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is not just a convention to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for initiating this debate. It is a most important debate and has been, for the most part, an extremely good debate. I am only sorry that, for a debate of this kind, it is such a thin House. It is a sad reflection on our priorities that more people attend this House to talk about a football stadium than about one of the most important parts of the whole of our foreign policy.
	I set out my stall at the beginning. I regard the United States as our closest, most important and most powerful ally. Anyone who takes a realistic view of the world power structure would be unwise to ignore the fact that this ally of ours is the world's only superpower. Let us not despise entirely the principles of realpolitik; this is our most important ally. To suggest that we have no special relationship is a misunderstanding of what "special relationship" means.
	I shall return to that at the end of my brief remarks. But at this point I want to say this. If there is a special relationship in no other field, there is a special relationship in the world of intelligence--one of the most important elements in the formulation of foreign and strategic policy. We have a relationship with America in the field of intelligence which no other country in the world shares. Those of us who have a taste for recent history need only look to the battle for the Falklands to realise that without American intelligence, and without our relationship with the Americans, that campaign might have gone a very different way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, made a reference to anti-Americanism. It is undeniable that a good deal of that exists, some of it even in this House. Of course I would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of anything so crude as anti-Americanism. But anyone listening to his remarks tonight might have come to the conclusion that he is not an unqualified admirer of our American allies. Incidentally, perhaps not on an entirely serious subject, if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, really makes no distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, I would not want to employ him as my tax accountant--or perhaps, on second thoughts, I would!
	I should like to mention two aspects of the relationship that we are discussing. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that they are the European strategic defence initiative and the missile defence programme. I certainly take a different view on the ESDI from that taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. Indeed, I go as far as to say that everything that I wanted to say about this lamentable and ill-advised venture has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
	I make only one peripheral comment. I wish that the Government would stop telling us that everybody in America is happy about it and agrees with it. I wish that they would also stop telling us that our policy in this matter is exactly the same as that of the French Government. Frankly, that is poppycock. We all know perfectly well that there are people in the United States who are extremely worried about this initiative. The Government may be able to quote people who are in favour of it. I can quote an equal number of people who are extremely worried about it. Similarly, it is no good the Government telling us that the French attitude towards this and our own, in terms of separate planning, separate intelligence and separate command structures are identical; they are not. One has only to read the French press to realise that in many cases the two views are diametrically opposed.
	These are complex matters on which, as we all know, there are different views. I do not suggest that either one is right or entirely without fault. However, let us at least admit that there are differences and set about trying to resolve them.
	I shall not bore your Lordships further with my views on missile defence except perhaps to say that one of the most important points to note is the paucity and poverty of some of the arguments against it. One which is constantly reiterated is that if the Americans continue with this, the Chinese will start working on their own ballistic missile programme. The Chinese have been working on that for years. To know that, it is necessary only to read the White Papers issued from Beijing. The Chinese have ambitions to be a world power. As part of that they are building up a ballistic missile capability and have been doing so for some considerable time. To suggest that they might do that if the Americans set up a national missile defence is to misunderstand totally the realities of world power.
	My other point concerns the old chestnut of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. That is regarded by some people with a tenuous grasp on reality as a cornerstone of world stability. It is nothing of the kind. It is an obsolete relic of the Cold War. It was designed to make the populations of the west and the Soviet Union vulnerable to each other's missiles. It was the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. It was condemned as immoral in those days by the very same people who are complaining because we are trying to move away from it and away from massive retaliation to defence.
	I have come to the end of my brief remarks. Perhaps I may return to the question of the relationship with the United States of America. We have other allies in Europe and elsewhere. However, I repeat that it would be unwise to dismiss too readily the fact that the United States is our most important and most powerful ally. We have ties of history, language, law and religion and of such vulgar matters as geo-politics and strategy. As I have said, we have other allies. However, I firmly believe that if we do not cherish this relationship with our most powerful ally and look after it with great care, we shall live to regret it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, not only for instigating this debate but for his introduction, which was of great interest. For fear of being charged as an unqualified admirer of the United States, which I am not, perhaps I should briefly declare my interests.
	For 12 years I have been a professor at the John F Kennedy School at Harvard. I am a member of the Advisory Council of the Council on Foreign Relations. I am a trustee of the Century Foundation and a member of the board of Rand Corporation Europe. I could go on, but I shall not.
	However, I make these comments in order to make clear that in my view, and I believe in that of most of my American friends and colleagues, unqualified admiration is not what they ask for. They are too grown-up, too mature and too wise to want anything of the kind. If they want a relationship with us, it is not that of master and poodle but of two mutually respectful and intelligent friends who are free to say to one another what they believe. Therefore, I am not an unqualified admirer but a great qualified admirer of the United States.
	In the years after the war the United States made a contribution so visionary, generous and far-sighted that there has been little like it in the entire history of the modern world. I put that on record for fear that anybody may decide or try to pretend that I am other than a great admirer of America and of what she has achieved.
	During the Cold War we had a single enemy and a single purpose. The United States was absolutely central to the opposition of that enemy and the achievement of that purpose. Nobody doubts that. However, as my noble friend Lord Lester stated, the end of the Cold War brought with it a completely different set of challenges. As recently as yesterday, the spokesman for the new American administration said in terms that the world of today is a very different world from that of the Cold War: one which has changed everything, and where there are multiple and complex challenges, civil wars, failed states, famine, disease, AIDS and, alas, global warming, people trafficking and much else. As my noble friend said, that can be addressed only by multilateral responses which go beyond the borders of every nation state.
	In the UK we were somewhat unilateralist in our approaches to foreign policy in the decades between the wars. To our great detriment, between 1919 and 1930 we believed that we could effectively run unilateralist foreign policy. We learnt after the war that those foreign policies had to be multilateralist. That is a lesson we have learned within NATO since 1949, within the European Union since 1972, with the Commonwealth over the post-war period and with regard to peacekeeping under the United Nations. Therefore, it is not surprising that we should suggest to our American ally, which until recently has been profoundly multilateralist, that we will not find answers to the world's problems in unilateralism.
	My noble friends Lady Maddock and Lord Lester have already pointed out the necessity for multilateral approaches. However, I turn to two issues in particular. The first is the Rapid Reaction Force. I mention that precisely because there have been many charges and counter-charges made across the Floor of this Chamber tonight. Perhaps it is wise to begin by quoting directly from the communique of NATO in April 1999. This is what it states about the Rapid Reaction Force. I shall quote from it, not least because of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which I have to say, with respect, were somewhat misleading. It states:
	"We acknowledge the resolve of the European Union to have the capacity for autonomous action so that it can take decisions and approve military action where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged. We therefore stand ready to define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of the Alliance for operations in which the Alliance as a whole is not engaged militarily as an Alliance".
	Please note that they refer both to an autonomous power and to the power of the European Union.
	I believe that the muddle has arisen from two sources. One is the change in administration, which has meant that the new one has said different things. We can quote to and fro for ever, but that is the truth. The second is that we have had a muddle--and I believe that it could be cleared up--about when the European Union is free to act on its own. That is why we in my party strongly believe in a right of first refusal; in other words, NATO should say clearly whether it wants to be involved or not. If it is, it should have a veto over the use of any NATO machinery by the European Union if it does not approve of the action. That I believe to be the de facto position. That is simply de jure as well.
	During the last couple of minutes I want to refer quickly to the missile defence issue, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred. The ABM treaty is all we have. I do not believe for a moment that is it a relic. It is all we have and all we shall have for the six or seven years before any missile defence can be brought into operation. These will be dangerous years, because unquestionably no one expects even the initial stage of missile defence--the so-called Alaskan first stage--to be achieved before 2008 or 2009. The Americans do not claim that; no one claims that.
	What then will protect the world in the intervening period? The answer must be the network of multilateral arms control agreements which exist at the present time. The system is also technically insecure. So far there has been no evidence of technological success and it may take more than seven or eight years to achieve it.
	The second danger is, quite straightforwardly, that there is an undermining of the deterrence principle. That could be a good thing but in the short run it is highly probable that Russia and China will attempt to build up their offensive deterrent forces if they fear that there is no multilateral solution to the problem presented by national missile defence. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to whom I listen always with respect because he is greatly knowledgeable, referred to rearmament by China. It is worth pointing out that China has about 20 nuclear warheads at the present time. Rearmament means going from 20 to something more like an effective nuclear missile force.
	Furthermore, there are nuclear powers, frighteningly India and Pakistan, referred to by American foreign policy experts as the most dangerous region in the world. It would be highly dangerous for those countries to remain outwith the multilateral arms control network that exists at the present time. And there is some reason to believe that they are being persuaded to consider joining in with those multilateral structures.
	Last of all, there is what one might describe as the dangers of a Maginot Line mentality, where we take action against the threats a previous time, failing to recognise that the most dangerous weapon of terrorists could well be the suitcase full of anthrax or the box full of Sarin gas.
	For all those reasons, it is not unfair to suggest that there should be full consultation at the present time. We hope and believe that by "consultation" the United States means that nothing is yet set in steel; that it is still possible to alter the details of what it proposes; that it will truly listen to its allies, who in turn will truly take what it says very seriously. And within that context both the United Kingdom and Denmark are of central importance. Without their co-operation in improving the early warning systems it would be difficult to mount an effective missile defence or even a theatre missile defence. That means that both of them will be involved in either supporting or breaking the ABM treaty effectively by proxy.
	In conclusion, I believe that the overwhelming responsibility of the United Kingdom, and with that, of the European Union--and here I want to refer in particular to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon--is to persuade the United States that any missile defence advances should be made within the context of the multilateral arms control agreements of the world. God help us if that does not happen at a time when Russia still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and of fissile materials. If Russia cannot be brought within the ambit of a new arms control system--and one addresses the problems of the post-war and post-Cold War world--she could become a dangerous source of nuclear materials to some of the more dodgy states in the world.
	Finally, I want to respond to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who speaks with great experience. It is true that under the Nun-Lugar system, which tragically the Bush Administration is proposing to cut back, there was a degree of co-operation between the United States and Russia at the level of precise knowledge about nuclear weapons, and about the retention and protection of those weapons, which goes far beyond anything to which the noble Baroness referred. The United States showed great imagination in trying to calm, soothe and involve the Russians in greater co-operation on arms issues. I believe that it is a model and an example that we would be well advised to follow.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may acknowledge her powerful and lucid piece of advocacy. Will she confirm that there can be no question of Britain and Denmark doing anything that is against the ABM treaty because it is signed only by the United States and the Soviet Union? No other country can possibly break it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said. He will notice that I said by proxy.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating today's debate. I should add that I am ordinarily resident in the United States. Whether or not that improves my understanding of the issues before us tonight I leave to the judgment of others. However, based upon the contributions of some of your Lordships I am not sure I should be too optimistic about that.
	Let me say at once that I have enjoyed tonight's debate. Not surprisingly, it has covered a lot of ground and I hope only that I can do it justice. Like my noble friend Lord Howell, I begin with the European Rapid Reaction Force, a topic expanded on by a number of other noble Lords. It is well known that we on these Benches are opposed to the establishment of a European defence identity that is independent of NATO. As an aside here, current speculation of the £1.2 billion-worth of cuts in the defence budget begs the question whether we will be in a position to honour the contributions to that the force which the Defence Secretary committed us to in November of last year. No doubt the noble Baroness the Minister will in due course offer the customary reassurances that our concerns are misplaced; that the proposals are, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, insists, "modest".
	However, the mood music of our European partners persists in painting the picture of a structure outside NATO. For example, General Kelche, the French Chief of Defence Staff, recently said:
	"European politicians need to know what is going on. They need to be able to select options and then conduct operations. Why should we have to go through NATO?".
	Against that background, we should not be surprised that concerns are manifest in America about the way in which the agenda is developing. My noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Waddington have provided ample evidence of that. Here I would make a simple point. Some noble Lords have suggested that the Shadow Cabinet is in some way directly responsible for the confusions about this in Washington. But is it not the case that the Government are much better placed by definition to allay American concerns than we on these Benches are to, as it were, "stir it up"? Therefore, what reassurances has the Foreign Secretary, even the Prime Minister, offered to the Bush administration? Surely, if there is really no cause for alarm about this in the United States, the Government have both the wit and resources to explain that. How are the Government satisfying the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that "the myth be exploded"? I believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out, the concerns in the US about this matter are both legitimate and real.
	Following on from that, there is the very much wider issue of the approach of the Bush administration to European integration. Mr Clinton's commitment to foreign policy was one of the hallmarks of his presidency, but inevitably Mr Bush is a very different person. There are no more cosy soirees about the third way. Perhaps, therefore, we should not be too surprised if we detect a certain cooling of enthusiasm within the US towards Europe. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, much of the rhetoric in Europe at the moment is a source of amazement in America. Yes, Europe is creating the single market, but to the perception of many in America--here my experience is somewhat at odds with that of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson--the culture of European integration is antipathetic to their entrepreneurial instincts and democratic traditions.
	To many in America there appears to be an increasing prevalence within Europe of sniping at the US, which my noble friend Lord Howell described as "shrill invective". Is it not credible to suppose that this is having an effect on American attitudes? As a commentary on that I give an example. I hasten to add that I gave notice to the Minister about my interest in this matter. There is increasing American irritation, from the President down, about the way in which the Commission seems to be attempting to impose its regulatory framework for data privacy upon the US, particularly because in many respects it is deemed to be contrary to the American constitution. But from our perspective in the UK what should really worry us about it is that it has the potential severely to damage the competitiveness of the City. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to comment on that in due course.
	As for the economic situation, despite recent figures for growth the US is not out of the woods yet. Mr Bush's chief economic adviser warned today that America could still face a recession. As he has said, it continues to be "hard to tell" whether the current slowdown will see the economy suffer its first contraction in a decade. It may be that there is further American irritation, perhaps even scepticism, with Europe here, as with the failure of the ECB to take action on interest rates for the benefit of the world economy.
	President Bush's speech yesterday on his administration's plans for ballistic missile defence guarantees the topicality of this debate, and many noble Lords have referred to it. I believe that it is worth quoting directly from the observations of President Bush:
	"We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defense to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM ... Treaty".
	It is perhaps also worth making the point that even the Prime Minister accepts that the character of the threat to global security has changed. As he observed in February,
	"There are a number of states now--some of them not very stable--that have got a nuclear capability ... It is one of the most difficult problems that the world faces, and we underestimate its significance at our peril".
	Despite that acknowledgement, we express concern that the Government have approached BMD with such equivocation. The views of the former Foreign Office Minister, Peter Hain--I wonder why he was moved--speak volumes in this context. That the Foreign Secretary has today expressed approval of President Bush's commitment to consultation is perhaps a step in the right direction, but do not the Government believe that our national interest would be better served by being more proactively engaged with the US in the development and deployment of BMD? Of course, the issue raises difficulties with respect to the 1972 treaty, and it is right to be aware of the sensitivities of our fellow Europeans, of Russia and of China. We believe that that makes it all the more important that the UK Government assume their traditional role of, as it were, bridging the gap in opinions on both sides of the argument.
	A number of noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Waddington, referred to the vexed topic of the Kyoto Protocol. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, to the extent that progress on issues such as that can be made only by international agreement (and, in terms, that was the virtue of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro). We on these Benches regret the opposition of the Bush administration to Kyoto, but, in common with the inference of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, during Question Time a couple of days ago, we are sanguine about it. As my noble friend Lord Waddington made abundantly clear, the reality is that the chance of Kyoto being ratified by the US legislature was, and is, negligible. It is extraordinary that so many appear to advocate that the Bush administration should work against the grain of their democratic process.
	We believe that we should continue to strive to meet our own Kyoto targets. At the same time, the Government should entertain constructive talks with America not only to recognise its particular difficulties in that context but also to take the matter further. As John Prescott has said,
	"The President of the United States has said that he accepts the need for action to combat climate change".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/01; col. 149.]
	It is perhaps surprising, therefore, that, although he was knocking on an open door, he singly failed to make any progress on the matter during his recent visit to Washington. On his return he announced to another place (at col. 152) that he,
	"did not have a meeting with the Administration, nor did I seek one when I visited Washington".
	Is that not an extraordinary way to conduct negotiations on what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, described as
	"probably the most important issue to face world leaders"?
	More seriously, can the Minister advise the House how the Government intend to take this matter forward proactively with the Bush administration, or do they intend to let it cool on the back burner until July in Bonn?
	I conclude with the observation of President Bush yesterday:
	"Together, we can address today's threats and pursue today's opportunities".
	While that was an invitation aimed very much at Russia, should not its tone inform our own approach to America? As my noble friend Lady Park said, we should never take friends for granted. However the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, may wish to represent the approach of these Benches to the US as "followership", we believe that that would ensure a proper partnership of equals and serve the interests of the people of both the UK and the US.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join all noble Lords by warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for tabling this most important Motion. I also thank noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to the high quality of the debate.
	I start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the United Kingdom has not, and never will, participate in anti-USA posturing. He can be confident that Her Majesty's Government will steer a course far from that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the United States has a number of important relationships. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that US citizens share a wide European ancestry; and some other European states would claim a greater number of ancestors than the UK.
	However, I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his contention that the special nature of the relationship vests solely in the breasts of those who fought together in the two world wars. I remind the noble Lord that the depth of that relationship now vests in younger breasts and that in the past 50 years we have continued to stand shoulder to shoulder in theatres of war, culturally and in other arenas, including marriage which was alluded to by my noble friend Lady Crawley. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that this relationship should transcend party.
	Although I disagree with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I most warmly welcome his balanced, sage approach. I assure him that we shall not overrate but shall value our relationship. I also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that we shall not take that relationship for granted either. We need balance in this as in all things. The relationship is fundamentally strong because it is based on close ties between our peoples at every level. Our political systems are founded on a shared outlook and shared values: freedom, free speech and free trade. They go beyond individual issues of policy.
	The relationship is fundamental to our economies and to our strategic interests. The US is our closest ally and biggest export market. We are the biggest investors in each other's country. The relationship will continue to be strong because: first, our vital national interests coincide now as much as they ever did; secondly, Britain's strategic partnership with the US in NATO remains fundamental to the national security of both our countries; and, thirdly, our leading role in the European Union enhances the relationship between Britain and the USA. That was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Howe.
	In this global era, the relationship increasingly covers the breadth of public policy. We face similar challenges and are eager to learn from each other. We have much to learn from each other, particularly in education, which is a top priority for both the UK and US Governments. We also have experiences to share in areas as diverse as welfare reform, the fight against crime and drugs, the IT revolution, poverty reduction, urban regeneration and transport systems. For example, we have used the experience of several US states to reform our UK welfare system towards helping people to help themselves and by making work pay.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was the first European leader to meet President George W Bush at Camp David in February. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has also met his opposite number, General Powell. Good working relationships have already been established.
	The trade and investment relationship between the UK and the US is hugely important. I was glad that this issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and that he sought to emphasise the importance of science and technology. I would reassure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are, through BCI, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DTI doing all they can to promote British business and science and technology. British interests in many of the 50 states individually outweigh our interests in most other countries. Last year Britain sold £28 billion worth of goods to the American market. We sell more to Boeing than we do to many countries. Five thousand six hundred American companies see Britain as their base in the European single market. My noble friend, Baroness Crawley, was right to highlight this aspect.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that there are occasional disagreements between us over trade, but the numbers are tiny and the disputes can be solved. On 11th April, the European Commission and the United States' trade representative reached an understanding in the long-running and damaging Bananas dispute. Many noble Lords will recognise the light I feel in that resolution. This is very welcome. Both sides deserve our congratulations and support.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that he was right to raise the differences of view in the United States in relation to the ICC. The views of the legal fraternity are important and there is a genuine debate on that issue. That debate has not been concluded and will go on. We need not be too pessimistic about the long-term outcome.
	Many noble Lords have rightly raised the issue of climate change. I share noble Lords' concerns that climate change is one of the most challenging international issues we face. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in that regard. The science is accepted. To say anything different would be akin to defending the idea of a flat earth. But we need to work through differences. "Working" means that we have to understand partners' reservations and unease. We cannot ignore the recent developments in the US climate change policy. The lack of US commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is a huge disappointment. But it will not prevent the United Kingdom and the EU from continuing to work for ratification and entry into force. We must also seek ways to bring the United States on board sooner rather than later. We shall therefore be working hard with EU colleagues, the US and negotiating partners in the umbrella group and developing countries to agree rules at the next climate change talks in July in Bonn. I can certainly reassure the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about that issue.
	Many noble Lords rightly concentrated on the international security dimension. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked of a new track and confusion. I must say to the noble Lord that no such confusion lies between us and the USA. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes it were otherwise. I cannot believe that be does. But in defence co-operation we are building the European Security and Defence Policy on solid foundations. President Bush--I hope the noble Lord will believe that he is of sufficiently high calibre to be trusted and relied upon as expressing the American view--supports our ambitions for ESDP. After meeting the Prime Minister, when ESDP was discussed in detail, President Bush said that,
	"the United States welcomes the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy, intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the transatlantic community".
	The US Secretary of State, General Powell, who I am sure the noble Lord would say should be given credibility, said:
	"We welcome a more integrated, robust and stronger Europe ... Our Allies are in the midst of important efforts to improve their defence capabilities. We will support any such efforts as long as it strengthens NATO, not weakens it".
	So I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we do not say that there are no differences between the plethora of people who have thought it right to express a view. What we do say is that if one looks at the EU's collective expressed view and the US view, there is agreement. We need to concentrate on developing and enhancing that agreement.
	A number of noble Lords have spoken on the subject of missile defence. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, commented on what has been said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, perhaps I should quote some of the statements made. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said:
	"We welcome President Bush's commitment to early consultations at a senior level on missile defence.
	President Bush has made clear his wish to develop a new framework for the US relationship with Russia. It is good news that President Bush spoke to President Putin. And we welcome the President's commitment to reductions in US nuclear weapons.
	The important issue is the clear commitment we have seen to work together with allies and with Russia. We will work closely with the Bush Administration as we always do--as close allies, with common strategic interests".
	Earlier today in the other place my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
	"I welcome the fact that President Bush has made it clear that there will be consultations, not only with allies, but also with the Russians".
	So I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we have recognised for some time that missile defence can play a role in responding to the threat posed by the growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery. We look forward to continuing consultations with the US team in relation to those matters.
	This is the support of a partner and an ally. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that a true friend is not an uncritical one. We need to be able to identify the bear traps and give our friends early warning to help them to ensure that they avoid them and we must play our part to facilitate a better understanding of each other. Comity is worth working for. It is not in British interests for our closest ally to feel vulnerable to attack or to be deterred from taking action in regional crises. It is not in British interests to say to the US, "The answer is yes, now what is the question?" The USA understands our position and we understand theirs.
	My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary recently met US Secretary of State, General Powell, at NATO Headquarters. General Powell gave a strong affirmation of the new US administration's commitment to the alliance, and said that NATO would remain the bedrock of the US relationship with Europe. He added that the alliance had provided the foundation for over 50 years of peace and prosperity for its member states and was as critical today as ever. He also voiced support for the European Security and Defence Policy, which strengthens the alliance and adds to European capabilities, and emphasised US determination to consult fully on missile defence.
	So I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that she need have no fear that the history which brought NATO into being will ever be forgotten or dishonoured; certainly not by the party of Ernest Bevin. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that a decoupling from NATO is not, has never been, and will never be within our contemplation.
	In Britain today we have a Government who are both pro-European and pro-American; a Government who have finally done away with the false proposition that we must choose between two diverging paths--the transatlantic relationship or Europe. We believe that this is not just in Britain's interest, but also America's and Europe's. And we use our position as a leading member of the EU actively to serve as a bridge between Europe and America, consistently rejecting isolationism and protectionism and advocating engagement and openness with the wider world.
	What has the past 50 years taught us? It was right that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her usual eloquent and erudite way, raised this issue. It has taught us that we are stronger when we build multilateral alliances; we are stronger when we build multifaceted policies; when we work together for the common good; when we talk and share. It is not a lesson that we would lightly forget. We have neglected none of our friends, be they old or new--in the Commonwealth, Europe or across the Atlantic--and we are not about to change.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright, raised the issue of the US position in terms of the Israeli-Arab difficulties. The issue of settlement is a sensitive one. That has formed part of our contacts with the new US administration about the situation in the Middle East. For example, the Foreign Secretary raised Israel's settlement policy in his conversation with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on 18th April. On Monday 30th April, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's personal envoy, my noble friend Lord Levy, raised the issue with senior US contacts during meetings in Washington to discuss the Middle East.
	The US position of settlement was restated by a State Department spokesman on 20th March, who made it clear that continued settlement activity does not contribute to peace and stability. The US, like the UK, is opposed to all unilateral actions which make achievement of a permanent agreement more difficult. Our clear view is that settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. Our EU partners and the international community share our position. The UK Government call on the Government of Israel to stop all settlement activity in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. It is an issue that will continue to have great importance.
	Lastly, I turn to an issue touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, in relation to the data protection difficulty. He asked a number of questions about that. I can certainly reassure the noble Earl that the European Commission has made a formal finding that the US safe harbour arrangements provide an adequate level of data protection for the purposes of Article 25 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and that transfers of personal data from the United Kingdom to organisations in the United States which have made a formal commitment to comply with the safe harbour principles will be taken as meeting the requirements of the data protection principle in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998. I hope that gives the noble Earl some comfort.
	The debate has centred on agreement about the importance of the nature of our relationship and anxiety about some of the changes and differences that we have had in the recent past. The noble Lord, Lord Howe, was right to refer to the views expressed by the US ambassador to the UK, Raymond Seitz, in 1994. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to repeat those words, because they are worth repeating. He said:
	"America's transatlantic policy is European in scope. It is not a series of individual or compartmentalised bilateral policies, and never has been. It is the policy of one continent to another. There is a simple observation that if Britain's voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington".
	I wholeheartedly agree with him. An influential voice gets heard. Concerns that noble Lords have raised about climate change and missile defence will be heard. The decisions of the US will be made on what they have heard. Nothing has yet been writ in stone.
	A false question does not become less false the more often it is asked. There is no decision to be made by Britain between the EU and the US. To pretend anything different is to act in a way that is more harmful to the United Kingdom's national interest than anything else.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it remains for me to thank most warmly both the Minister and all those who have taken part in the debate. All speakers seemed to agree that the Atlantic relationship is in transition. Some speakers seemed to conclude that, nevertheless, everything is fine; others suggested that there are storm clouds ahead. I confess that I belong to the second category. In such conditions, my advice would be to carry an umbrella and, if possible, wear a raincoat or mac. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Abnormal Loads on Motorways

Lord Hoyle: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding the employment of persons other than police officers to escort abnormal loads on motorways.
	My Lords, my Unstarred Question relates to the issue of replacing police escorts with civilian ones. Anyone who has ever driven on a motorway will have experienced the delays that take place when abnormal loads are being moved. They are often moved at peak traffic times and so queues build up, often more than a mile in length. In addition, escorting abnormal loads takes up police officers' time--time that could be used for other purposes. Apart from the frustration that is caused to users of the motorway, there is also the cost to those who are transporting the goods. There is delay and frustration all round.
	Is there not a better solution to the problem? Should we not consider replacing the police with properly trained and equipped civilian escorts who have gone through a rigorous training scheme so that safety is not put at risk in any way? Such escorts would be equipped with vehicles that were in contact with the load being driven, so improving safety. That would free up the time of police officers who are currently engaged in these duties and would mean that the movement of loads was quicker and more efficient. It would reduce the inconvenience to which I referred earlier and would lead to a reduction in hauliers' costs.
	Delays are caused as a load goes through each area. It has to wait for a new police escort to be made available to it. If civilian escorts were used, the loads could probably travel more often at night when there is little congestion on the motorway. Certainly civilian escorts could avoid the peak-time movements that lead to the frustration and inconvenience that I mentioned earlier.
	This is not a new idea. In fact, this was first mooted as long ago as 1994. It was then proposed that consideration should be given to the proposal to use civilian escorts rather than police escorts. Four years later, in November 1998, a consultation paper was produced and sent to all the interested organisations. Replies to that paper were due back on 14th January 1999. One wonders what happened to that consultation paper. Were replies to it received and, if so, what did those replies say? What general feeling did they reflect? If the response was positive, again I ask: why are we still waiting for this proposal to be implemented?
	Of course I have raised this matter on several occasions since I came to your Lordships' House. I have done so because I think that it ought to be given attention. It is an issue which has been held up for far too long. Indeed, I last raised it--I do not think that it has been raised since-- in the form of an Oral Question on 7th November 2000. At that time my noble friend seemed to be quite pleased--almost excited--to be able to say to me that there had been a relaxation. A paper had been sent out by the Association of Chief Police Officers which, if implemented, would bring about a 35 per cent reduction in police escorts. That suggested some movement, but it came seven years after the original proposal and even then only just over one-third of the police escorts would be removed. That was no great success in itself. However, I looked at the paper and I found that it was not quite as simple as that. On the matter of implementation, the paper states that the changes to the guidance require both Home Office and DETR approval and that consultations are likely to take three months. It then goes on to state that the legislative requirements may be capable of resolution through secondary legislation-- good, in that respect--but that that is "some way away". What is meant by that? The paper states that the reductions could be implemented locally without the need for legislation, but that is not quite the same thing. I wish to make the point to my noble friend that that was not the good news that my noble friend intended to deliver.
	Once more I return to my earlier point: how long will it be before even the revised regulations are put into operation if legislation is required? When I asked that Question, several supplementary queries were also put forward. My noble friend was asked exactly what would be reduced by 35 per cent. My noble friend said that it meant a reduction of 1.5 million movements. That in itself could not be correct because even the notification of abnormal loads in one year does not amount to anything like that figure. Furthermore, the number of notified loads that are then escorted is fairly small. Again, I should like an explanation of the figure of 35 per cent--35 per cent of what?
	Another interesting exchange took place during that particular Question Time. The noble Earl who is due to contribute from the Opposition Benches suggested that there is no direct radio link between a police car and an abnormal load. Again, my noble friend will probably remember expressing extreme surprise that that might be the case, despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Simon had travelled with a police escort for an abnormal load. He confirmed that that certainly was the case when he travelled with the police.
	I have read with interest the Written Questions and exchanges that have taken place since then between the noble Earl and my noble friend. I must say that I am still perplexed as regards whether there is a direct link, whether there is no direct link, whether there is a direct link between the driver's mate for the abnormal load leading not directly to the police escort car, but back to the police control room and, from there, to the escort car. If that is so, I am quite sure that safety could be improved in that respect.
	Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend several questions. First, what has happened to the consultation paper issued in 1998? What were the replies received to it? Secondly--I ask this question in relation to his last response to me in November--when will the revised guidance issued by ACPO in October 2000 and leading to a possible 35 per cent reduction be implemented? Again, can he give the House a more accurate explanation of the 35 per cent reduction in relation to vehicle movements? What number of police escorts will be affected?
	We have been looking at this since 1994. Again I must ask: why are we waiting and when will a decision be implemented? Lastly, because not much has happened since 1994, I ask my noble friend to tell me what this exercise has cost.
	I look forward to my noble friend's positive replies. I hope to hear that soon we shall be able to say goodbye to frustration, inconvenience and the waste of police officers' time when finally we bring in civilian escorts.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I know that the House will be obliged to my noble friend Lord Hoyle for giving us the opportunity to question and debate the issue of abnormal loads on motorways and whether the police or some other proficient organisation should be involved in shepherding these loads on the roads.
	My noble friend asked specifically what is the policy as regards employing persons other than police officers to do this work. But it would appear from previous Answers to Parliamentary Questions that as a result of long consultations--they have been very long--between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers revised guidance would be issued to police officers on the criteria for escorts. The guidance would state that they will reduce the occasions when a police escort is thought to be necessary.
	On the occasion to which my noble friend has already referred, the Minister was glad to say that it has been estimated that that could reduce police involvement by as much as 35 per cent. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us how that is to come about. It may well be a good start, but it does not provide the answer to the other question. The motorway travelling public may willingly accept that, but they are still concerned about daylight movements. Indeed, as the Minister said on 7th November last year, we have also,
	"to see what further progress can be made to introduce private escorts to reduce further the burden on already over-worked and over-burdened police forces".--[Official Report, 7/11/00; col. 1361.]
	True--but it is only part of the solution.
	When one looks at the size of the problem, one can see that it certainly requires more urgency. My noble friend Lord Hoyle and I know very well that the consultations designed to make progress on this subject have been going on for far too long. There should be an urgent look at ways of proceeding towards our goal of cutting out daylight movements, introducing night-time movements, ensuring that the police numbers required are reduced and that some other proficient organisation does the job.
	When I raised this issue in my debate of 29th January 1996, there were 1.5 million movements in one year, of which 150,000 were escorted by police officers at a cost of £7 million from police resources. According to the Minister's latest figures in Parliamentary Questions, police-escorted movements rose last year to 200,000. Obviously, so has the cost.
	Five years ago--in one year--some 1,781 abnormal loads were escorted by the police in South Yorkshire alone. A survey at that time by 16 forces over a nine-year period revealed that notifications of abnormal load movements had increased by 12 per cent. That was the national trend. It must have increased in recent times because the roads are much busier now. The burden on the police is increasing, and so is the frustration of road users.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, extracted some useful information from the Minister in Written Answer 119 on 5th June last year. It was revealed that the Cambridgeshire Constabulary had estimated that approximately 540 abnormal loads require a police escort in one year, and that about 134 police car hours are spent escorting these loads each quarter at an estimated cost to the Police Service of about £5,700.
	If these figures are available for South Yorkshire, for Cambridgeshire and for each county, why does not the Minister inform the House of the real national picture? Every time a Question is tabled on this issue we get the reply, "We do not keep central records". It would be no problem to get the figures from each county. We should like to know the annual number of notifications; how many are escorted; the police man-hours involved; and the cost to the police.
	We recognise that in moving towards a satisfactory solution to this problem we must consider safety as paramount. That means that there is no simple solution. That is evident from the final report of the EDMC Management Consultants of 7th January 1998. Like my noble friend, I ask what has happened since that report.
	Bearing safety in mind, why cannot midday movements of abnormal loads on motorways be phased out and replaced by night-time movements only, which is a safer period in which to travel? Why cannot we ensure that hauliers start paying the police? After all, it is our money.
	As motorway travellers--and I am one; I travel on motorways every week and have done so for many, many years--we are aware of some of the problems. Abnormal loads under police supervision reduce three-lane motorways to two lanes. The result is miles of tailbacks, frustration, impatience, bumper accidents, road rage and the ruination of schedules. We could be relieved of much of that by night-time movements, which would make motorway travelling safer.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, while the question is directed at escorting abnormal loads on motorways, ACPO has been considering escorts on motorways and link dual carriageways for some time. The subject was mentioned in paragraph 5.2.18 of the Home Office document, Review of Police Services and Ancillary Tasks, in 1994, where the proposal was to introduce private escorts of abnormal loads on motorways.
	Perhaps at this juncture it may be worth addressing certain of the facts regarding abnormal loads and their movements. The law does not place a direct responsibility on police to escort any load. What is required is that, in order to move any load that exceeds 2.9 metres width, 18.65 metres rigid length, 25.9 metres total length, load overhang in excess of 3.05 metres or 100 metric tonnes in weight, the haulier must notify the police, giving two working days' notice of the movement. The chief officer must either accept the details of the route given or may give directions varying the date, time and part or whole of the route. It is at this point that, by implication, police should be involved in order to enforce or control traffic management, to mitigate traffic congestion and to promote road safety.
	ACPO set up a working group on the matter and considerable discussion has taken place between ACPO and the Home Office. ACPO has been supportive of the moves towards privatisation but has been concerned about the quality of a privatised company and would require some form of quality assurance to be carried out. There has also been concern about control and regulation of the traffic powers of a privatised company and, therefore, ACPO would wish to see regulation of the companies carrying out this work in what is a quasi-policing function. The challenge of progressing this function has proved particularly difficult and has not been finalised.
	The problem therefore lies in how to provide suitable regulation to enable private companies to perform the duty of accompanying abnormal loads. Powers to control traffic are restricted by statute. Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the driver of a vehicle to comply with the directions of a constable who is,
	"for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic".
	Section 37 makes a similar provision for pedestrians. Section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 permits a constable or a person acting under the instruction of the chief officer to place signs to,
	"prevent or mitigate congestion or obstruction of traffic, or danger to or from traffic, in consequence of extraordinary circumstances".
	There is no authority in law for any other individual to control traffic, and it is my contention that that is where the difficulty lies. The police would be supportive of privatisation if the issues of regulation, training and the quality of organisations could be dealt with and if the safety of the public could be assured.
	Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a personal observation about what can happen. I have only once accompanied an abnormal load on a motorway. That was in a marked police vehicle with the appropriate lights flashing. There were only two lanes on one section of the motorway. Notwithstanding the police vehicle being correctly positioned in respect of following traffic, there were still drivers who tried to force their way past us and the abnormal load. If I were not speaking in your Lordships' House, I might even consider calling them "absolute prats". It is for the silly or inconsiderate driver that a police presence is needed. As I have mentioned, a civilian has no power to stop or direct any traffic.
	It is accepted that abnormal loads move every day without causing any form of conflict. However, where conflict does occur, it demands timely intervention--which can only be by a police constable. Surely, therefore, good practice dictates that, if police are on the scene, the likelihood of conflict is reduced and that where it does occur, it is correctly managed.
	Finally, I am led to believe that there are some chief officers who, because they are not prepared to recognise the dangers involved, abrogate their responsibility and the wish of Parliament. Many hauliers would be willing to add in what might be termed "special services of police" to the cost of any load movement if they knew that the payment would not compromise road safety. However, should a formal contract be struck between two parties--one to carry and one to escort--for gain, I suggest that road safety would immediately be jeopardised.
	The challenge of overcoming technical and operational matters to the satisfaction of all interested parties remains.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate. I feel that I have intruded into a private club, as a number of noble Lords have spent some time discussing this matter on various occasions. My noble friend Lady Thomas, who usually speaks on transport matters, is not here and she has handed over the task to me. I am delighted to be able to talk without a great deal of authority. I have listened with absolute attention to every contribution so far. Many of the questions that I would have asked the Minister have been answered in those contributions.
	I had assumed that underlying the Question was the fundamental matter of cost--cost to the police and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said, the cost of taking police officers away from other duties where there is a possibility that civilian escorts could be provided. I understood from the noble Lord's remarks that there was also some concern about the existing practices of police escorts. I, too, am fascinated as regards the revised guidance of ACPO and the strange "35 per cent" mentioned by the noble Lord. I dare say that we shall receive an answer ere long from the Minister on that point. It would be interesting to know what a reduction of 35 per cent means.
	Looking at the matter superficially, one can see all kinds of reasons why we should seek to replace a police escort with a civilian one if it were possible. But all kinds of matters come to mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said, the underlying principle that must be borne in mind is safety. As the noble Lord said, safety is paramount. If safety is in any way threatened or reduced by the changes proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, we should be very concerned. I, too, should be fascinated to read the consultation paper.
	In my experience, as a motorist who has followed cautiously these kinds of loads both in this country and abroad, a far higher proportion of loads move by night in France and Spain than they do here. I am puzzled as to why so many abnormal loads should move in the middle of the day, causing hold-ups, congestion and frustration.
	One point concerns me about the idea of even a highly trained civilian operation with motorcycles--I must mention motorcycles because they are a particular interest of mine. Motorcycles are ideal for use by outriders in this kind of operation, together with four-wheeled vehicles before and aft. But the problem arises--

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. I believe that the Metropolitan Police do use motorcycles.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have indeed seen them used--not by the Metropolitan Police but in Hampshire, with whose police authority I am familiar and friendly, having advised its members over the years. It uses Japanese motorcycles these days, if that is of any interest. It is a pity that we cannot produce a British motorcycle to do the job. However, the Japanese models are most suitable for all kinds of police work, including the work under discussion, because they have the ability to carry equipment and are reliable.
	In theory, I believe that you could train people to undertake the work required to ensure that the rules and regulations regarding the secure loading of whatever commodity it is--whether it be a large pipe or a combine harvester--are correctly observed. That seems to me to be absolutely essential. Presumably the permissions for such movements come not only from the police but also from the local authority concerned. It seems to be quite a complicated process. If you are crossing various county or police authority lines, surely you need separate notifications and communications with each of those authorities and police forces.
	I am surprised to hear from other noble Lords that they have experience of loads being carried where there is no telephonic communication between the police escort and the driver, or drivers, of such equipment. In this technological age, that seems to me to be almost improbable. Surely such communication is absolutely essential.
	I believe that cost may well be added to the exercise if you have a well-trained and approved civilian body that can replace the police and the use of such powers. I would not use the language used by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to describe drivers these days, although I absolutely agree with him. Indeed, outside the Chamber, I might even express it in stronger terms. That applies particularly when the weather is bad. As we all know, when the weather is bad in this country the traffic is heavy and people become frustrated. The presence of a police escort, together with the flashing blue lamp, will inhibit rash behaviour caused by frustration.
	I see that the noble Viscount is shaking his head in disagreement. I find that very strange. Perhaps I belong to a generation that is frightened of police officers. I am told by some police officers that they have more trouble nowadays with members of the public then was the case even 10 or 15 years ago. However, that usually applies to young men. If young men will overtake in bad weather and ignore police outriders, what will they do with civilian outriders who do not have such powers? That seems to me to be a fundamental consideration.
	If there is to be a reduction in cost, and a reduction in the number of police officers used for this type of work, that is all well and good. But surely those who contract to do this work--the haulage companies, and so on--need to pay currently for the amount of police and local authority time that is spent in such operations. Therefore, they would certainly have to pay a civilian operator to carry out the work. Presumably that aspect is covered by the consultation paper. Disregarding the difficulties that I have outlined as regards powers and all the other matters concerning security of the load, and so on, can the Minister say whether we know if that would be more or less expensive on an average load?
	I have nothing further to add. I am absolutely in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who has obviously carried out a great deal of work on the matter. This may be a surprise to noble Lords, but I have to tell the House that motorcyclists are now used in a professional capacity, especially in courier services. Indeed, many former police riders are now engaged in that kind of work. In this ageist society, there are plenty of older riders, like myself. They are probably better trained than me, but, as noble Lords know, my record is exemplary. If my term here as an hereditary Peer should end, there will perhaps be a few years for me as an escort for one of loads described by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. There are expert and safe riders out there who could do much of this work. I should be interested to know whether that is a possibility. We shall look to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to tell us whether or not that is so.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I remind the House that I have an interest as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. I also have my own personal abnormal load vehicle: it is a tank transporter at the REME museum at Bordon. Just to give your Lordships an idea of its size, I should point out that it is about 105 tonnes gross, up to 13 feet wide and 90 feet long.
	I agreed with nearly every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, with one exception. He implied that there was a need for very detailed training. I am not convinced about that, and shall explain my reasons later. The noble Lord also referred to the relaxation in escorting criteria. I, too, share his anxiety on that point. The vehicles carrying heavy abnormal loads may weigh 100 tonnes but have only a 400 horsepower engine. That means a power to weight ratio of four horsepower per tonne. One can imagine that if one's car, which weighs about a tonne, had a four horsepower engine it would not go fast uphill. Abnormal loads may not necessarily be wide but when they crawl uphill they travel extremely slowly. There is a danger that other vehicles may run into the back of them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has destroyed half my prepared speech by speaking in detail on the issue of mobile phones. However, I am undeterred. The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned the increase in abnormal load traffic. That is a symptom of a welcome increase in the size of the economy. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's comments on exclusive night running. I agree that it is desirable for abnormal loads to travel at night and at other unsocial hours. But it is for the police to decide the optimum time for abnormal loads to travel. Of course, different constabularies will adopt different rules in that regard. We should remember that night running of abnormal loads, especially on dual carriageways, is a relatively new phenomenon. About 15 years ago, with the exception of the Metropolitan Police, most constabularies did not allow such night running.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to the difficulty of implementation of the measure. He also said--and he is right--that there is no legal requirement for the police to escort such loads. However, we need to emphasise the fact that we are talking about escorts on motorways and linked dual carriageways. The principal role of an escort vehicle on a motorway or dual carriageway is to ensure that the lanes being used are completely blocked off. If an abnormal load travelling in lane one overhangs both the hard shoulder and lane two, the escort vehicle will sit in the middle of lane two to prevent any motorist from trying to squeeze between the load and the high-speed traffic in lane three. If that is done in a dangerous manner it can cause an unnecessary obstruction. However, if it is necessary to obstruct a lane for reasons of road safety, I do not see that a difficulty arises.
	I admire the skill of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who spoke high-quality waffle! He referred to the security of loads. It is interesting to note that traffic police do not have much experience as regards how to secure an abnormal load. One requires specialised knowledge to secure a load that may weigh 100 tonnes. A load may weigh only five tonnes but be delicate and be six metres wide. I believe that the police would hesitate to interfere unless a load was obviously insecure.
	Several speakers have rightly praised the performance of the police. However, it is worth recalling that an experiment was carried out in which two civilian vehicles carrying abnormal loads were escorted as they travelled from one end of the country to the other. One was escorted using experimental methods and the control vehicle was escorted in the normal way. The control vehicle took five days longer than the other vehicle to reach its destination because of the need to wait for police escorts. Obviously the police have to adopt priorities in their work.
	I regret that this is another example of the Government's failure to deliver and to make a decision. Other examples of that are the Bowman Army radio system, Terminal Five, nuclear waste and the Dome. As many noble Lords have said, this issue is not new. It was proposed by the previous administration, who did not succeed in implementing it. It is not a controversial issue. There is broad agreement that this is the way we should move forward. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will probably say that it is a sensitive issue, as he did on the previous occasion we discussed it. However, I do not think that it is a sensitive issue.
	Some constabularies have required abnormal load operators to use a premium rate fax number. They are statutory safety notifications. Is that morally or legally right? Are there legal powers for them to do so? Would it be in order for a motoring organisation such as the AA to use a premium telephone number so that it costs the police money to phone the AA or the RAC to notify it of an accident or a broken down vehicle? It is a peripheral point.
	We are talking only about motorways and linked dual carriageways. We are not talking about private escorting on single carriageways. That is a different situation. There are many arguments against that: issues of security; cash in transit vans; and so on. If we go for private escorting, the police will be released from the task and able to undertake more important duties. It is important to remember that escorting an abnormal load is an extremely boring job but, worse than that, it is also very demanding.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, if we go for private escorting, those loads can be moved at unsocial hours. An abnormal load could be moved between five o'clock and ten o'clock on a Sunday morning--but not late on a Sunday because we know that the traffic builds up.
	The job could also be better carried out. A vehicle could be specially equipped for the job. It could carry a range of specialist equipment. It could have traffic cones in case something went wrong. The vehicle would have appropriate signing and high visibility markings. But, most importantly, it could have communication equipment.
	Although ruining half my speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, referred to my supplementary question last year. I shall let the Minister into a secret. I knew that his answer should have been either that he would write to me or, yes, there is not normally a direct radio link. I believe that that is the point the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, raised. The Minister indicated that he would be extremely surprised if there were no direct radio link. I was surprised by his answer, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. However, I agree entirely with the Minister's sentiments. One of the advantages of going for private escorting is that we should have extremely good communications between the escort vehicle and the crew of the abnormal load. In addition, the escort vehicle would have a cellphone link to the police. If the police wanted the load diverted, they would have only to ring the escort vehicle.
	The noble Lord's position about mobile phones is at variance with my experience and that of my contacts in the industry. If the noble Lord still insists that we use mobile phones in the way indicated in his answers, is it a direct link between the crew of the abnormal load, patched through the police control room? There would be a genuine two-way communication. Alternatively, is it a message relayed through? We need to be clear about the Minister's position. Are mobile phones used to organise the escort? That may be what the Minister was thinking about when he answered me. Alternatively, are mobile phones used when the load is trundling down the motorway and the driver of the abnormal load wants to pass some information to the police car? He may be losing power; perhaps he needs to pull up unexpectedly; there may be an obstruction. We need help from the Minister on that point.
	There are two ways forward on this issue. First, we could "contractorise" the police functions in escorting abnormal loads. I believe that to be quite dangerous. We would have a shedful of complex regulations. There would be criminal and civil safety and liability issues if something went wrong.
	We have touched on training considerations. We have had reference to the EDMC report. I think that that report was somewhat over the top. If we are not careful, we will end up with the escort driver being far more qualified than the driver of the abnormal load. As I have said, the duty of the escort vehicle is simply to sit behind the load, fully blocking off a lane. Escort vehicles are not required to perform complicated operations such as going the wrong way round a roundabout or a "Keep Left" sign; they just trundle down the motorway.
	The driver of the abnormal load needs only a C&E licence. The escort driver should be a "competent person". That is a well understood legal term. Crane inspectors are referred to as "competent persons". No special qualifications are required, but I would not set myself up as one, because I would not be a "competent person". Does the Minister think that anyone could be better qualified than an experienced low-loader driver to be an escort driver?
	The better alternative is for the police to authorise the move for a certain time and to tell the haulage operator to organise the escort, in accordance with the ACPO guidelines on the necessary communications equipment and the size and type of vehicle.
	A big, regular heavy haulier would provide his own escort, but a small or occasional haulier would select a contractor, rather than relying on the police nominating one. He should be responsible for it, not the police. If something went wrong, the police would have no problem investigating it, because they would have no conflict of interest. They would be dealing with a commercial operator who had made a mistake. It would be a problem for the haulier, not the police. The ACPO guidelines are non-statutory, but if the operator did not adhere to such custom and practice, he would be vulnerable to an accusation of driving without due care and consideration, and possibly even of recklessness if, say, he did not have a direct radio link.
	Some people believe that new legislation is required now. Does the Minister believe that primary legislation is required, and if so, what sort of primary legislation? I agree that there may be a requirement for small changes to the lighting regulations. The Minister might have a chat with his noble friend Lord Whitty on that to allow escort vehicles to operate amber flashing beacon lights, but that is a very small point.
	Some noble Lords have referred to the cost. The cost of providing the police service is insignificant compared with the cost of the delays to industry caused by expensive equipment being held up for days in a lay-by waiting for a police escort.
	Will the Minister introduce private escorting--yes or no? If not, will he say so now? If he will, he should stop dithering and just do it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for stimulating a debate on this evidently very important issue. I have been quizzed on it at least twice at Question Time. No doubt I shall continue to be quizzed on it. I enjoy quizzing others on the subject as well. If ever I was to be persuaded that this was the very complex matter that it evidently is, the learned exposition of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, over the past 15 minutes or so--

Earl Attlee: Fourteen.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Fourteen. The noble Earl has utterly convinced me that the issue is far more complicated than I even began to imagine before we embarked on this short debate.
	Before I address the specific issue, I shall take a few minutes to explain the Government's policy and thinking on the escorting of abnormal loads on motorways. As has been said, driving in today's traffic calls for patience. The patience of any motorist, on two or four wheels, can be greatly tested when they are held up by a slow-moving abnormal load. However, it is important to appreciate that the movement of such loads on our roads, whether the load be a power generator or a cement factory chimney, is both unavoidable and absolutely essential for the functioning of our economy, commerce and industry, and, more importantly I suspect, for the future of the competitive export of goods from our heavy industries and manufacturing sector.
	There is no ideal time at which to move such loads on motorways. Having listened to the debate and having read the briefing, I have long since concluded that no simple solution exists to the problem of delays caused to other drivers.
	I turn to the matter of police involvement in escorting. Traditionally, the police have provided escorts for abnormal loads. They are not required to do so by statute, but rather, for reasons of road safety, public safety and traffic management, in many cases choose to do so for loads which are above a certain size and weight.
	For some time the Association of Chief Police Officers has been concerned that escorting is an unnecessary and costly burden on the police. Its view, which is sensible and is certainly one that I share, is that it should be possible for some other agency or body to discharge the function in the same way as private escorts are provided on the Continent. Having listened to the contributions this evening, I believe that there is a fair consensus towards that overall objective.
	That view is further supported by work undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers which shows that the use of police powers is not normally necessary during load movements on motorways and dual carriageways linked to them. Private escorts, possibly provided by the haulier companies--a solution that has certainly been aired this evening--would allow loads on those roads to move more quickly where they pass through a number of police force areas by removing the need to stop at each police force boundary and pick up a new escort.
	The introduction of private escorts would, of course, reduce the police resources committed to that work by allowing other, properly qualified escorts to take on the responsibility, albeit with overall control of the arrangements remaining with the Chief Officer of Police. The police are satisfied that road safety would not be compromised. Such an arrangement would also benefit the hauliers by providing a predictable escorting service. It would also be easier and quicker to move the loads to their intended destinations.
	As my noble friends Lord Hoyle and Lord Mason pointed out, in 1998 we undertook public consultation on our proposals to transfer some of the responsibilities for escorting abnormal loads from the police to private escorts. It is no great mystery. Consultation took place previously in the early 1990s when members of the party opposite were in government. Indeed, at the time I was an official on the other side of the debate and pushed to see abnormal loads guided by means other than using valuable police traffic expertise and time.
	We are now looking carefully at the responses to the consultation. As we develop our thinking and proposals in this area, we remain in close contact with the police service. I made that point on the previous occasion that this subject arose at Question Time.
	I shall be making further concluding comments and I also have some important information to relay to your Lordships. However, I believe that it is only right that I work through one or two of the points that arose by way of questions during the debate, because obviously they inform our views on these matters.
	My noble friend Lord Hoyle asked a number of questions. I shall try to answer as best I can the points that he raised. He asked the question: 35 per cent of what? The number of abnormal loads moved on the road system is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million. The number of escorted loads is thought to comprise some 2 per cent of that figure. They are round figures but they suggest roughly 30,000 to 40,000 loads per year.
	My noble friend also asked whether direct links by radio exist. That point was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and it also arose at Question Time some time ago. ACPO has confirmed to me that there is usually no direct radio link between the police and abnormal load crews. That is no great mystery; it is information that we have shared previously. Communication is normally available via mobile phones from the abnormal load's second man and/or through the police control room to the police escort. That appears to be the normal method of working.
	My noble friend Lord Hoyle asked about the replies to the 1998 consultation paper. The proposals were sent out to 258 consultees and we had responses from 57 of them. They included letters from the Road Haulage Association, the Heavy Transport Association, the Freight Transport Association and ACPO. All those organisations were involved in the preparation of the proposals before they were issued for consultation. Responses have also been received--rightly and understandably, in view of the important role that these bodies play--from the Highways Agency, the Association of Police Authorities, the Police Federation, the AA and the RAC. We received a broad range of responses from about 20 per cent of consultees to whom we distributed the consultation paper.
	My noble friend also asked when revised guidance would be implemented. The revised guidance has in fact been implemented. I said in Question Time on the last occasion that this matter was raised that a reduction of some 35 per cent was anticipated as a result of issuing the revised guidance. The guidance has been implemented as of 1st April this year. I shall later report on its impact.
	My noble friend also understandably asked about why we had been waiting for the exercise for so long. The consultation took longer than all of us had expected. That was due to a number of factors, including the wide range of responses that we received and the number of bodies that expressed reservations about the viability of the proposals contained in the consultation document. Several very technical points emerged from the exercise, which obviously need to be addressed. I believe that it is fair to say that we are trying to achieve consensus. One can draw from that the implication that there was not absolute consensus on the way forward. I understand and fully share some of the frustrations that have been expressed.
	My noble friend Lord Mason made understandably trenchant comments about shifting increasing numbers of abnormal loads to night-time movements. That would have huge resource implications for traffic policing because the majority of forces need to have their manpower resources available during peak demand daytime periods to keep traffic flowing and to respond to unexpected new operational priorities. With traffic, one can easily imagine what they might be. My noble friend's case is based on the assumption that all, or perhaps the majority, of abnormal loads could be moved with private escorts. That may not be the case--that goes to the heart of the debate in ACPO. The question of resources is very important and that is a matter for local chief constables.
	To sum up, I confirm that the introduction of private escorts is still very much on our agenda. I should emphasise that that is a longer-term objective. We are in close contact with the police service and we are developing proposals. In the mean time, ACPO has, as I said, issued new guidance that took effect from 1st April. The guidance reduces the occasions on which it is considered that a police escort is required. I have already given a figure for the estimated reduction.
	Most police forces have now adopted the new guidance from 1st April. The early indications--only one month on--are that police involvement in escorting has so far reduced by around 29 per cent. I take that as being very encouraging in the first month of the impact of the guidance. I willingly confess that that is based on a trawl of a sample of police forces to enable us to obtain a view on the early impact.
	Comparing the March and April figures for Warwickshire showed a reduction of 23 occasions when a police escort was required, down from 44, which equates to a 52 per cent reduction. By comparison, in Thames Valley the figures showed a decrease from 102 to only 95--a 7 per cent reduction. But in the West Midlands the drop was from 169 to 114, a 32 per cent reduction. There are large and impressive reductions in Gloucestershire--44 per cent--Essex and Derbyshire.
	So it is an improving picture and the 35 per cent figure to which I referred at Question Time in November is readily attainable if progress can be maintained in the way in which it clearly has been over the first month of the operation of the new guidance. We shall have to see whether or not those early results are replicated across all police forces over a longer time span as the new guidance properly beds in. I asked my officials to do a more thorough check of all police forces so that we can obtain a fuller picture.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a significant improvement and step forward in reducing the burdens of this time-consuming task on our police forces. It will help to facilitate the easier and quicker movement of the loads and, as has been eloquently argued in your Lordships' House, benefit both the haulier companies and the ordinary motorist by reducing delays.
	I accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with the police on the introduction of private escorts to reduce the burdens of this work on the police still further. I shall shortly be meeting the chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, who takes the lead for the Police Service on this issue, to review progress on the introduction of private escorts. I hope to be in a better position to provide a fuller picture of those improvements following that meeting--improvements which clearly resulted from the coming into effect of the new guidance.
	I believe that we have now made real progress, perhaps for the first time, towards our longer-term objective. I am extraordinarily grateful to those noble Lords who helped us towards that important end by being so persistent--rightly so--in bearing down on this issue over a number of years. The cost benefit to the Police Service may only be £7 million, but that is a real benefit. If we can achieve it, we shall have achieved beneficial cost savings which can perhaps be usefully deployed to other areas of Police Service work, in particular areas of traffic policing, and of course it will bring greater efficiency benefits in the longer term.
	I am grateful to all those who participated in this short debate, which I am sure has been most illuminating.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there are safety implications in relaxing the criteria. Will he talk to ACPO and make sure steps are taken to record all accidents involving abnormal loads? They will not show up in convictions because in a rear-end shunt accident it will not be the fault of the abnormal load driver. Also, does the Minister recognise that, even if we go to private escorting, it will always be possible for the chief constable to decide to have the load escorted by the police?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I explained, I am shortly to meet the chair of the relevant ACPO committee, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire. I shall raise both of those issues with him and hope to advise the noble Earl of the outcome of that advice.

Social Security Fraud Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.